The politically correct guide to diversity

Diversity.  What a vacuous concept.  And much like fairness, it is a concept that has been hijacked to achieve political ends.

According to the dictionary, diversity means the condition of having or being composed of differing elements.  Previously, diversity did not connote a goodness or badness.  But no more.  Nowadays, some types of diversity are virtuous, so virtuous that there exist bodies to promote them.  But some types of diversity are wicked, and they like Voldemort, must not be named or spoken of.

Just thinking out loud, much of the current focus on diversity seems to be in the workplace, particularly professional industry workplaces, where it is used to gets already successful women onto listed company boards or into judgeships or into senior business roles.

Oddly though, there seems less interest when it comes to diversity of ideas, speech and thought and in certain industries where there is little diversity to start with.  Such as:

  • in primary and secondary education where all schools must be public and controlled by a central state bureaucracy
  • in tertiary education where all ideas and material must be pre-vetted by a committee
  • in health care where all health services must be public and controlled by a central bureaucracy

Diversity.  Coming for you soon.

Follow I Am Spartacus on Twitter at @Ey_am_Spartacus

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to The politically correct guide to diversity

  1. max

    Thomas Sowell – The ‘Diversity’ Fraud
    Nothing so epitomizes the politically correct gullibility of our times as the magic word “diversity.” The wonders of diversity are proclaimed from the media, extolled in the academy and confirmed in the august chambers of the Supreme Court of the United States. But have you ever seen one speck of hard evidence to support the lofty claims?
    Although diversity has become one of the leading buzzwords of our time, it has a history that goes back several generations. In the early twentieth century, the principle of geographic diversity was used to conceal bias against Jews in the admission of students to Harvard and other leading academic institutions.
    Because the Jewish population was concentrated in New York and other east coast communities at that time, quota limits on how many Jewish students would be admitted were concealed by saying that Harvard wanted a diverse student body, consisting of students from around the country.
    Therefore some highly qualified Jewish applicants could be passed over, in favor of less qualified applicants from the midwest or other regions of the country.

    Fast forward to today. It is common, at colleges and universities across the country, for the test scores of Asian American students who have been admitted to a given college to be higher than the test scores of whites or of blacks or Hispanics.
    That may not seem strange, since that is true of test scores in general. But, at any given institution, applying the same standards to all, the test scores of students at a particular institution would tend to be similar. More Asian Americans would be admitted to higher ranked colleges and universities, however, if the same standards were applied to all.
    In short, something very much like the quota limits that were applied to Jews in the past are now being applied to Asian Americans — and, once again, are being justified by diversity.
    But what justifies diversity? Nothing but unsupported assertions, repeated endlessly, piously and loudly.
    Today, as in the past, diversity is essentially a fancy word for group quotas. It is one of a number of wholly subjective criteria — such as “leadership” — used to admit students to colleges and universities according to their group membership, rather than according to their individual qualifications.
    This is not something new. Nor is it something confined to the United States. Very similar patterns were found more than a decade ago, when doing research for my book “Affirmative Action Around the World.”
    In India, the courts’ attempts to rein in some academic quotas were met by a proliferation of new, and wholly subjective, admissions criteria. Individuals from groups that were not as qualified by objective criteria were simply ranked higher on subjective criteria and admitted.
    In the United States, the Supreme Court itself has long been part of such game-playing when it comes to affirmative action. Back in 1978, an opinion by Justice Lewis F. Powell banned racial quotas with one hand and created “diversity” as a criterion with the other. In other words, colleges were told in effect that they can have racial quotas, but they just can’t call them racial quotas.
    According to the Constitution, “We the People” are supposed to decide what laws and policies we live under. But not if we can be so easily fooled by courts using slippery words like “diversity.”

  2. max

    max
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    #2513429, posted on October 3, 2017 at 12:50 pm

  3. max

    CULTURAL DIVERSITY: A WORLD VIEW
    by Thomas Sowell
    “Diversity” has become one of the most often used words of our time– and a word almost never defined. Diversity is invoked in discussions of everything from employment policy to curriculum reform and from entertainment to politics. Nor is the word merely a description of the long-known fact that the American population is made up of people from many countries, many races, and many cultural backgrounds. All that was well known long before the word “diversity” became an insistent part of our vocabulary, an invocation, an imperative, or a bludgeon in ideological conflicts.
    The very motto of the country– E Pluribus Unum– recognizes the diversity of the American people.

    http://www.tsowell.com/spcultur.html

  4. max

    Thomas Sowell – The ‘Diversity’ Fraud
    Nothing so epitomizes the politically correct gullibility of our times as the magic word “diversity.” The wonders of diversity are proclaimed from the media, extolled in the academy and confirmed in the august chambers of the Supreme Court of the United States. But have you ever seen one speck of hard evidence to support the lofty claims?
    Although diversity has become one of the leading buzzwords of our time, it has a history that goes back several generations. In the early twentieth century, the principle of geographic diversity was used to conceal bias against …. in the admission of students to Harvard and other leading academic institutions.

    https://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2016/12/20/the-diversity-fraud-n2261393

  5. Flyingduk

    If diversity is a strength, why does the military wear uniforms?

  6. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    Diversity is nothing but affirmative action with lipstick.

  7. John Constantine

    Our diversity is our strength.

    This is chanted by the turnbullites whenever the downside of a trillion dollars worth of debt funded balkanisation is mentioned.

    The only reason debt funded balkanisation has never worked is because it has never been done to the point there is no turning back, with all other options destroyed and wiped out.

    Genocide all those that aren’t tolerant, Comrades.

  8. Mark

    Such cynicism. Doncha know diversity of thought is lots of different people thinking the same thing.

  9. With the current debate raging on about SSM and that it won’t lead to a slippery slope, the slope is already being greased: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-03/same-sex-marriage-exemptions-would-be-bad-for-buisness/9007896.

    Diversity indeed.

  10. Chistery

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoG9zBvvLQ

    Here is a brilliant primer on Cultural Marxism by Jordan B Peterson.

    It’s long and well worth listening to it all, but you can get the context by listening from 3.00-6:00 and get the explanation on how diversity fits the postmodernist agenda for power from 12:30 – 18:00.

  11. jupes

    If diversity is a strength, why does the military wear uniforms?

    Well the modern military is very concerned with issues such as ‘diversity’ and have allocated a lot of resources and effort to making sure everyone has a uniform that they feel comfortable in. For example the ADF has camouflage uniforms for pregnant soldiers and hijabs for Muslim sailors. Now that they even have an officer cadet of no specific gender, I’m sure the ADF has people devoted to making a comfortable uniform for “ze” (or however the freak refers to itself).

    I’m pretty sure Sir John Monash didn’t return from the Great War demanding women in the infantry and transsexual officers, let alone wierdos of no specific gender. After all he led one of the greatest homogeneous armies of the 20th century. So how the hell does the ADF find itself leading the push for the implementation of radical Marxist gender theory in our society?

    Well it is the perfect example of the slippery-slope argument. Back in the day the men did the fighting and the women did the nursing. That system worked very well. Then women were allowed to contribute more to the war effort by doing military admin jobs in Australia. That worked very well too. Then women gradually increased the range of military jobs they did until someone thought it would be a good idea to introduce joint training with the men.

    Despite assurances to the contrary, this meant lower standards and double standards. Things went down hill rapidly from there. Pressure for combat jobs to be opened to women met hardly any resistance from the useless pricks running the ADF at the time. Far better for them to suck up to the politicians and who knows, maybe they would be appointed Governor or Governor-General when they retired.

    Ridiculous concepts such as “We recognise that to be respected and supported, our armed forces must represent our whole society, and should reflect the rich multicultural diversity of Australia itself.” became the main principle for recruitment. Pathetic minor scandals were used to get people such as the Sex Discrimination Commissioner to make life easier for females and for trannies and other freaks to join.

    I’m not sure how they will wind this insanity back if indeed there are any senior officers left with the desire to. Only an existential war will stop it one way or the other.

  12. Jo Smyth

    ‘Why does the military wear uniforms’. Any suggestions and alternative dress codes. I suspect one reason could be so you know whose side you are on.

  13. Roger

    The very motto of the country– E Pluribus Unum– recognizes the diversity of the American people.

    And also the imperative to make them one by the process of “Americanization.”

    Diversity without assimilation soon becomes corrosive of the bonds that tie the traditional body politic together. Which is precisely why cultural Marxists use it to further their subversive agenda.

  14. If you tell a South African that Australia is a diverse or “multicultural” country, they think you are stupid. If you tell a South African that Australia officially wants to encourage diversity and multiculturalism they think you are insane.

  15. Sir Isaac

    Someone should tell those honky arse krill to get with the program…

  16. Siltstone

    Just thinking out loud, much of the current focus on diversity seems to be in the workplace, particularly professional industry workplaces, where it is used to gets already successful women onto listed company boards or into judgeships or into senior business roles.

    Yes, having observed this first hand in corporations, there is a great con-job going on where the prime beneficaries of “diversity” are the top “1 %”. When these women talk figuratively about “occupy Wall Street”, they mean to become the top 0.1%, all the while implying its for the benefit of the 99%.

  17. egg_

    Is there any longer gender diversity, or do women wish to pretend that there are no differences in the genders order for women to be “equal” to men – whatever that means?

    “Men’s Sheds” now include women, thus likely no blue language, which would have formerly been tolerated.
    “Men’s Clubs” now include women, so that there’s no longer any sneaky men’s business that women can’t gossip about?
    If boys are boisterous – heaven forbid – they must be diagnosed as having ADHD and medicated, FFS, as girls don’t behave like that!

  18. John Constantine

    Now the beyond blue organisation tax funded to fight men’s suicide rates has been handed to redfilth Hillard for diversity.

    Now advertising as ‘by gays, for gays’

    Comrades, we give you gillardian diversity.

  19. Splatacrobat

    Shoehorning disparate groups into any company for diversity sake is a sport SJW’s love to play but rarely win. Most companies are too busy focusing on employing their capital to maximum efficiency and rewarding their shareholders to bother about social engineering and ideological gender warfare.

    Unless of course you are confusing GDP (Gross Domestic Product) with GDP (Gender Diversity Promotion), then please do carry on.

  20. Splatacrobat

    Diversity & Inclusion officers are the modern day equivalent of the Political Commissars during WW2 in the USSR. Only this time they are predominately women (who dominate HR positions) and feminists dedicated to helping other women to the detriment of white men.

    Five years ago you would be hard pressed to find a D&I officer position on SEEK.com but nowadays it’s the coolest thing to have for companies who want to flaunt their gender equality credentials.

    They are the union delegates to the feminist movement like the shop steward is to the Socialist movement. Embedded, emboldened, and ideologically driven.

  21. Splatacrobat

    It’s okay to say X, Y or Z people are encouraged to apply if a company wants to advertise to a broader audience but it crosses the line of discriminatory hiring practices if they say only X will be considered for the position.
    If a company wanted to know more clearly how they were going to perform in the future and advertised for a fortune teller, it would be completely appropriate to include in the job description “knowledge of future mandatory”.

    However, it would not be lawful to advertise “Only female Romanian Gypsies called Zelda will be considered”.

  22. Splatacrobat

    Your efforts are not appreciated by the SJW’s. They don’t care you built a successful business. They want a seat on your board (make that 50% of the board seats) and all the managerial positions that they can claim before other diversity botherers find out they can flim flam you too.

    They don’t care about your company, products, or services as their goal is appropriation through the conduit of diversity. It’s today’s pernicious ideology being pumped through the office Tannoy like muzak in an elevator.

  23. ArthurB

    Diversity? Why not start with the national broadcaster, which preaches diversity, but ignores it within its own self — it is notorious that the ABC pushes a Green-Left agenda, and there is nobody right of centre among the presenters of its current affairs programs.

    I have just looked up the Australian Human Rights Commission’s website, and it says that in 2011 females comprised 57.5% of all employees in the Commonwealth Public Service, and according to a newspaper report that I saw a few days ago, the proportion is now 59%. I am sure that the gender warriors will not be happy until males have been eliminated totally from the public service.

    I spent a few years working in the Commonwealth public service about a decade ago, and it was my observation that there was one set of regulations about conduct, but they applied only to males, who could be punished severely for flouting them, while females were above the law.

  24. Norman Church

    Truly, I say unto thee that through Diversity are all things made possible. Well, for some anyway.

  25. Andrew M.

    Hoooo boy. I’ll just leave this here.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-26/same-sex-marriage-cognitive-ability-link-hilda-survey/8984744

    This oh-so-smug “scientist” believes this cognitive correlation is predictive of the SSM debate even though the question asked of the HILDA respondents was about equal rights and was not the question asked in the SSM survey.

    But don’t let such definitional inconveniences get in the way of some good agitprop: Only idiots vote no, supposedly.

  26. Boambee John

    Multiculturalism is cultural genocide.

Comments are closed.