"in which the authors argue that LGBTQ+ people need to be celebrated and included in nuclear facilities and programs lest they defect and share our most closely held secrets."
There is absolutely nowhere in the article where the authors suggest that those of us who are members of the LGBTQ+ community are likely to defect or share secrets if we're not included. You're just trying to stir up people's emotions over nothing. It doesn't even suggest we be celebrated, simply accepted and included.
Do I agree with all of "queer theory"? No. It ofttimes it goes too far into pushing sexual/gender identity as if it was the only thing that defined us. But nothing about it, nor the article intimates us holding it as some sort of blackmail to be included "or else".
On the other hand, there is absolutely no proof that women or minorities govern any better than old white males. In many European countries parliaments mostlt consist of women and minorities and yet the wars go on as planned.
I didn't suggest that it did, though yes, the authors do, and as Mike pointed out in answer to you, there are studies out there that say so. I don't even suggest a push to recruit diverse candidates. But if you've got an environment that's intolerant or even toxic towards some portion of the workforce, be they LGBTQ+, or, even, old white men, things don't get done because too much energy and attention is on that, rather than on just cooperating and working together.
After the covid disaster it is a little hard to trust anything that has Harvard in it.
But as someone who has worked in the silicon valley for the last 15 years, I am fairly confident that what Harvard calls diverse has nothing to do with intellectual diversity. In all the big corporations teams are diverse in terms of the skin color and sexual orientation but are not diverse in terms of thinking.
Group think is encouraged- actually it is a must and anyone who diverts is fired.
"in which the authors argue that LGBTQ+ people need to be celebrated and included in nuclear facilities and programs lest they defect and share our most closely held secrets."
There is absolutely nowhere in the article where the authors suggest that those of us who are members of the LGBTQ+ community are likely to defect or share secrets if we're not included. You're just trying to stir up people's emotions over nothing. It doesn't even suggest we be celebrated, simply accepted and included.
Do I agree with all of "queer theory"? No. It ofttimes it goes too far into pushing sexual/gender identity as if it was the only thing that defined us. But nothing about it, nor the article intimates us holding it as some sort of blackmail to be included "or else".
On the other hand, there is absolutely no proof that women or minorities govern any better than old white males. In many European countries parliaments mostlt consist of women and minorities and yet the wars go on as planned.
I didn't suggest that it did, though yes, the authors do, and as Mike pointed out in answer to you, there are studies out there that say so. I don't even suggest a push to recruit diverse candidates. But if you've got an environment that's intolerant or even toxic towards some portion of the workforce, be they LGBTQ+, or, even, old white men, things don't get done because too much energy and attention is on that, rather than on just cooperating and working together.
After the covid disaster it is a little hard to trust anything that has Harvard in it.
But as someone who has worked in the silicon valley for the last 15 years, I am fairly confident that what Harvard calls diverse has nothing to do with intellectual diversity. In all the big corporations teams are diverse in terms of the skin color and sexual orientation but are not diverse in terms of thinking.
Group think is encouraged- actually it is a must and anyone who diverts is fired.
There is a good reason why big corporations are never able to innovate even though they invest billions in so called DIE.