the debate here misses the point: science is not a bureaucracy, and the goal of being a scientist is not in climbing up ladders and chains of hierarchy. almost nobody in any research field sees diversity for the sake of diversity as a desirable end point: this is a contrived ideal, being pushed down from the outside for purely political purposes.

these arguments about resumes and advancement are fine if you're talking about the private sector, but that is not what science is, and it is not a model that fits the purposes of scientific inquiry.

you'd think we shouldn't have to explain this - that it is self-evident, and there is no reaction besides introverted depression, and cynical statements about how embarrassing the whole thing is. but, this is the kind of policy that happens when you put corporations, via government, in charge of science: it becomes distorted to fit the goals of the private sector. given this government's full-throttled embrace of neo-liberalism, it is not surprising for them to try and enforce their ideological leanings in places that do not make sense. a deeper reflection on the implications of the corporatization of research is perhaps required.

but, we will not get this. we will merely suffer the consequences, and leave it to future generations to salvage what is left.