A lot of people seem confused about "diversity of thought." First, no one I've ever met is opposed to "diversity of thought" as a concept. It's a red herring to position this as people who believe in "diversity of thought" vs. those who don't. 1/

Theoretically, diversity of thought sounds like an appealing concept. But, there's a reason most organizations that prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion don't talk about it in these terms, and why it's so cringey to those of us who care about DEI. 2/

First, one thing we know is demographic diversity may be one of the fastest ways to *achieve* diversity of thought. 3/

When you bring together people from different backgrounds, you're bringing together folks who've had different life experiences, and will thus bring distinct perspectives to the table. 4/

But for most organizations, when they focus on diversity, they're typically not doing so just because they want greater innovation or performance, though those are real benefits that flow from diversity. 5/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter/

They're often doing so because they want to build equitable organizations where people from all backgrounds can do their best work and thrive. If you focus on "diversity of thought," you will absolutely fail to identify the very real barriers to actual, demographic diversity. 6/

If you just think about this in its most basic terms, focusing on "diversity of thought" is taking a colorblind approach to diversity. We know from a wealth of research and practice that this backfires, particularly for those from the most marginalized backgrounds. 7/

Then, there's this whole other problem with diversity of thought. Does it include all types of thought? In the Coinbase example, the answer is no. 8/

The company wants diversity of thought, *except* when people's thoughts relate to the very real threats they and their communities are facing in the world, because of their identities. 9/

And while I think "diversity of thought" is actually a beneficial consequence of actual, demographic diversity in organizations, I also think it should have limits. 10/

Specifically, I think that to value diversity means to reject beliefs, ideologies, and behaviors that endorse dehumanizing or devaluing others. Diversity of thought is a positive thing, but not all "thoughts" are equally valid. And some cause real harm. 11/

If you care about building a diverse organization, there are a few things we know to be true. (1) You cannot take a colorblind approach. A focus on diversity of thought is exactly that. 12/

(2) You can't treat all thoughts, perspectives, and ideas as equally valid and worth of respect. They're not. If you're stressing about where to draw those boundaries...(a) it's not actually *that* hard, and (b) leadership isn't suposed to be easy. You can figure this out. 13/

(3) You can't ask people to check their identities at the door. That doesn't even work for folks from majority groups, but it *really* doesn't work for people from underrepresented or marginalized backgrounds. 14 /

I have about a million other things to say, but I will say this. I've been telling leaders for years that they should be transparent about their values, and hold people accountable for living those values. 15/

I'm sure many other CEOs share Brian's perspective. I think most are probably strategic enough not to broadcast it, because they know they'll lose out on amazing talent, and they also probably realize their culture will get pretty gross. 16/

While I hate that this blog post may normalize what I find to be a really concerning approach to culture and leadership, I think Coinbase is doing current and future employees a service by at least being transparent about where it stands.