I'm having a little trouble understanding how folks can complain about having been subjected - unwillingly, apparently - to diversity issues in one breath, and in the next cry foul when someone tries to enforce conformity. If you don't like diversity (as others would have it), rejoice in conformity!

Or...

If you don't like conformity, form an alliance, get political (in the sense of wielding influence), and explain patiently to policy makers how one's choice of clothing is but one aspect of diversity. Small gains can be won over, one employer at a time, but I think it will be a long slog before the government requires public contracts to be bid on by companies run by kilt-wearers.

For me, diversity ≠ tolerance, but rather it is learning to respect, if not appreciate, people's unique talents, cultures, experiences, strengths, and struggles. It's about what people contribute, not what people can get away with. No doubt, many an employer's diversity program began after the exit interviews. They learned that if you want the very best and the brightest, you can't be too picky about the package.

Regards,
Rex in Cincinnati


Oh...,

Quote Originally Posted by michael steinrok
The plane doesn't land because an ATC does or doesn't do their job. Nor does it not land because a woman is wearing a mini skirt and a tight cashmere sweater. The plane lands because the flight crew makes it land and they can't see into the tower. The government is wrong on this as well as many issues.
Whether or not the government has a right to dictate policy that it believes minimizes distractions in the workplace, the flight crew does not navigate busy and often confusing airfields and air space alone. Forty-nine people died in Lexington, KY, this month because a pilot turned down the wrong runway on takeoff, while the sole ATC turned his back from the controls to do paperwork and was unable to spot and correct the mistake. It takes teamwork, not heroes, to fly commercial aircraft.