> The argument is that the previous system wasn't a meritocracy either, and by accounting for the existing biases we gather up the talent that was previously ignored.
Whether or not that is true (you haven't given evidence for it), this doesn't justify additional anti-meritocratic practices like diversity hiring. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> You don't stop reading the resume upon hitting <minority group> and hit the hire button. They still need the other required skills too.
An analogous argument wouldn't justify e.g. nepotism ("we don't care only about nepotism, we also care partly about merit!") and it doesn't justify diversity hiring either. The argument is that, when deciding who should be hired for doing difficult cancer surgeries, only merit should be considered, and diversity (or nepotism etc) shouldn't play any role at all.
Whether or not that is true (you haven't given evidence for it), this doesn't justify additional anti-meritocratic practices like diversity hiring. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> You don't stop reading the resume upon hitting <minority group> and hit the hire button. They still need the other required skills too.
An analogous argument wouldn't justify e.g. nepotism ("we don't care only about nepotism, we also care partly about merit!") and it doesn't justify diversity hiring either. The argument is that, when deciding who should be hired for doing difficult cancer surgeries, only merit should be considered, and diversity (or nepotism etc) shouldn't play any role at all.