It could be a measure of each candidate's difference (in diversity points) from the overall cohort, which is an approximation of how much the diversity of the group will change by accepting/rejecting this candidate.
But that seems hard to implement - you'd have to recalculate this for every candidate every time you got a new candidate - so perhaps we can implement an optimization: approximate this by estimating the distribution of the group and measuring differences from some centroid.
HR teams, I'm available for techwashing consultancy.
No one uses the word diversity by itself to mean that.
Even if the writer did, it still isn't reasonable for a million readers to presume that a writer meant anything other than what they wrote, according to the consensus usage of the the words/phrases in the given context.
It only makes sense to assume the writer meant what most readers would interpret they meant, and don't move off of that assumption unless the writer issues some update or correction.
In Stalinist and Maoist countries you’d get extra points for uni when coming from a worker or farmer family. Times change, ideologies change, but some things don’t.
That actually makes sense from the perspective of a state managing its labor force, though. That's just smart. "Diversity" for its own sake is just meaningless centrist bullshit.
