I’m not sure if this has been given a name yet. But you likely know what I’m talking about.

When an organization declares that it is seeking to “increase diversity”, several negative effects follow. The individuals that are brought on as a result are not recieved as qualified equals. Instead they carry a perception that the major reason for their inclusion is because of their characteristics rather than their talents.

Worse still is that often times the new “diverse” individuals are not actually qualified. This can result for a variety of reasons. The demand for “diverse” individuals may be greater than the supply of qualified “diverse” individuals. Therefore less qualified canadates with “diverse” characteristics are considered over more qualified non-diverse candidates.

This results in the population of “diverse” individuals developing a reputation for lower quality. This is fundamentally unfair to top canadates, average canadates, poor canadates, and non-diverse canadates. And the mission focus can become lost in the organizational culture.

Top canadates are disserviced because they are in their new position not solely on the basis of merit but also on the basis of their “diversity”. This hurts their own self esteem and it hurts their reputation with the people of the new organization. Furthermore they may become associated with other “diversity” canadates who have already developed a poor reputation.

Average candidates are also disserviced by diversity pushes. Canadates that could be highly effective if they applied themselves can lose motivation. They may know that they are unlikely to lose their position because of how the optics would appear. The lower motivation robs these individuals of reaching their full potential.

Poor candidates are worst off. They are unqualified and unable to succeed in their position. Depending on their personality they might blame others for their failures and become bitter or they may blame themselves and become depressed. Whether bitterness or depression, the emotional damage will be severe. Average and top candidates will resent poor candidates for bringing down the reputation of the group. Tragically, these poor candidates are not held accountable for their failures and therefore never forced to self improve. They are held in this tourturous predicament by the diversity mandate.

Non-diverse individuals are also negatively effected. Certain qualified individuals can lose out on opertunities because they do not meet a diversity requirement. This can cause resentment for those characteristics of diversity which they lack. There is now solid evidence of real harm done to non-diverse individuals because of their lack of certain diversity characteristics. Again, this can result in either bitterness or depression depending on the personality type.

Curiously, non-diverse individuals in diversity seeking organizations tend to develop reputations for even higher quality. Because they do not meet the diversity requirements, they are assumed to be so talented that they were accepted/retained anyway. Otherwise average individuals may double their efforts out of fear that they will get cut for lacking diversity. Weirdly the non-diverse group outclasses the diverse group in an ironic affirmation of bigoted opinions.

Finally the organization itself loses focus on its mission. Whatever energy is dedicated to diversity is removed from efficiency. And whatever quality loss is accepted in pursuit of diversity is reaped later in lost capability of the organization.

In summery: The Diversity Effect states that organizations that seek out diversity will hurt all the individuals involved, sow bitterness/depression, manifest bigoted assertions, and damage the quality of the organization’s mission.

So, who’s excited about the Democrat VP pick? We only know one thing. It must have genatallia consistsnt with a female.