A few months ago, I was introduced to a chap in a cafe. Friend of a friend sort of thing. Or acquaintance of friend. Not sure. Apparently a documentary maker of some sort.
I got introduced as a biologist iirc. And that being in the sciences, this chap was interested in my views on a letter that was published a year or two ago by a bunch of senior academics who thought any mention of mātauranga Māori should be removed from our science sector. I got the impression that this chap (can't remember his name) was generally favorably disposed towards the letter, and couldn't quite bring himself to understand why vast numbers of us in the sciences thought it was abhorrent. Digging a little deeper, it turned out that this chap described himself as, I think a marxist of some description. Was putting forth the line that racism doesn't exist and that it's all about class, not race. I think if was being extremely polite, I'd characterize that view as extremely naive.
The general point is that I then launched into a rant that I feel I've had a go at several times, but am never quite sure if I've mastered or not. Partly, I feel like there's a body of literature I have seen in passing, but need to assemble to back up my arguments, and because I haven't my argument is solid enough. That's a little bit silly though. More often, I'm just never sure how well I've made my case.
The essence of the most mercenary part of the argument, is that almost all the science I've seen, suggests that more diverse organisations, commercial, academic, whatever, tend to deliver better results. Not making your organisation more diverse is reducing your potential. Which is dumb. When you go out of your way to include the best of people with viewpoints different to your own, the people who miss out are the mediocre white guys.
The less mercenary part basically boils down to Wheaton's law. Don't be a dick. Treat people as people. Care.
A couple of years ago I spent some time prototyping a precision medicine platform. It was designed with one of the local iwi. One of the major things I took from that experience was that doing the hard work up front and getting multiple viewpoints feeding into the design resulted in a system that was better for everybody. People who cared about their data could engage in informed stewardship. People who didn't, didn't have to. The people who didn't care would benefit in the longer term, because the science that resulted from that platform would be informed by data that was more representative of our society.
To me it felt like a win-win. Do a bit of extra hard work up front. Reap the benefits down the line.