The Cult of Diversity. Or modern segregation.

"A workforce should represent the community that it serves."

It should? Per what?

I'd say that a workforce should be comprised of (a) people who want to do that job, tempered (especially in anything like a capitalist system) by (b) people who are the most capable of doing that job.

Neither of those imply that a workforce for any particular vocation is going to be reflective of the demographics of the community that it serves.

I have not suggested this - and in fact above made it clear that the fire service is subject to legal scrutiny should it so discriminate. The dispute now is around your claim that "diversity is no good for anything" while "it discriminates against white men.". There is little discrimination against white men to be found in an organisation which employs an overwhelming majority of them (as found with the BBC, when we explored that case a while ago, where white men are overwhelmingly the most rewarded) so I can see why you favour both situations. However I see that your original, and peculiar notion of 'segregation' by "Progessives" giving apposite resources and attention to particular communities and groups, seems to have passed over.




Just as well you didn't, then...




None of these points changes my original observation that women can easily be fire fighters, just as much frontline soldiers, the "dangerous and physical" nature of the work notwithstanding.




You are welcome to your opinion. Best to keep the different colours, cultures and sexes largely apart, eh?



What was your comment, just above about making 'dishonest insinuations'? Oh yes, I remember.




White males are, arguably, the most privileged people on the face of the planet, certainly in the western hemisphere. Meaningful 'discrimination' against such a group as an overall concern seems to exercise you more than most other social and economic commentators I have read - at least outside of The Daily Mail's comments page. Of course, no one is saying that diversity does not ever bring problems. But this is still no reason not to see organisations represent the wider make up of the society they serve for reasons already made clear and to institute policies to help this along when it is otherwise failing. Otherwise we just end up with grumpy white men seeking to retain the status quo on spurious grounds, but in effect just defending their ever-present advantages as good thing. And we wouldn't want to read that, would we?

How about you point out what in the article supports the loopy right-pap you've been posting?  Something not behind a paywall would be good.  (and likely amusing when cross-referenced with your "claims").

Nd is there some reason to watch your toob?  The first 10 seconds seemed positively infantile.

---

If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.

This would be a wonderful thought if not for the notion that employers could easily have less noble goals than the one described.

The problem is that most employers are run with people that have at least as many biases as the people they hire if not more.

The community an employer resides in routinely has the skills within that community and if they rarely if ever get in trouble for it.

No one is assuming it racist or bigotry. Bias is not bigotry.

It's more akin to comfort level. We like being around people that are similar to us.

Regulations regarding hiring practices is simply a way of curbing the bias toward choosing people that are like us or at least justifying why so many of our workers are like us.

Affirmative Action  or EEOC stuff does not force employers to hire a diversified staff unless the qualifications are met within that diversity and yet they look outside that community for the same talent.

Because the president of the university is asserting, without any evidence, that students in chemical engineering or dentistry will not be able to have the same quality of education just because they aren't able to pad out their diversity stats with people who couldn't get onto the course by merit alone, and will be liable to fall asleep in front of their bunsen burners during their chemistry lab for lack of melanin in the skin of the students around them. 



But that video IS the cult of diversity ("what's the best thing about diversity? Everything") It's the fatuous and vapid fetishisation of people from non-European ethnic backgrounds, and doesn't really tell us anything about why diversity is so amazing, other than the fact that Islam doesn't have a religious prohibition against eating lamb. Much like the video, ethnic diversity is proclaimed to be the greatest possible good, and is stated as a self-evident fact.

If you're studying chemical engineering, or dentistry, I don't see how you would be impaired in learning your craft by lack of exposure to other cultures. If that were the case, Iceland would be an absolute basket case of a nation and economy, because nobody would be complete the simplest of tasks having learned in homogenous classes of white Icelanders, devoid of the magic that diversity of pigmentation brings about.

And whatever the exposure benefits of a diverse educational environment, does that actually justify that people of a rarer (more sought after) skin tone ought to have a lower entrance standard than 'boring' white people? That seems to be what the university president thinks. Most importantly (and regardless of whether diversity is a positive thing), the university's erstwhile policies on the consideration of race were a perversion of the purpose of Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action did not exist in order to create more 'culturally rich' workplaces and educational institutions, it existed as a corrective against subconscious (or even conscious) biases against certain ethnic groups. Meaning that companies and educational institutions needed to be forced not to employ practices which were prejudicial against blacks and minority candidates. Clearly if the university was fighting for the RIGHT to use Affirmative Action, then Affirmative Action should not have been applied since there was no prejudice against blacks which needed to be corrected.



People are boring, and most facets of diversity boil down to the silly hats that people wear when praying to a fictional entity that helps to ameliorate their fear of death. The lives of most people consist mainly of mundane events such as doing laundry, preparing dinner, commuting to and from work, watching TV after work, etc. I personally prefer diversity, but that's more because I tend to irrationally romantically fetishise men of certain ethnicities. I'm not saying that homogenous cultures are superior, but I also don't think that we should pursue diversity at the cost of meritocracy, as the pro-diversity crowd would like.

If you're going to university JUST to get a degree in chemical engineering, or dentistry, then whether it's a diverse classroom or otherwise is not very important. And funny that you call me a 'rightist' when nothing that I've posted here is more right wing than your hidebound and disgusting views on assisted suicide. As a matter of fact I am not opposed to diversity at all, I simply don't think that people should be at a disadvantage for having 'boring' skin colour and 'boring' cultural background. I think that Affirmative Action may have been necessary as a corrective at some point in the history; but when the university is fighting for the right to use Affirmative Action, then that subverts what the policy was initially created for (i.e. to prevent institutions from dismissing minority candidates because they only want people like themselves.)

It's axiomatic that if any institution WANTS to use Affirmative Action, then the policy isn't needed in that instance and shouldn't be used. Because the only cases in which Affirmative Action is needed are those cases where the institution would otherwise discriminate against non-whites. 

And I do not want to keep advantages previously obtained, not that I seem to be at an advantage in my life by virtue of being white. But I don't think that at an individual level, it should be terribly much harder to advance in life if you are a white person from a lower class background than if you are a black person from a lower class background. If you simply make it impossible for poor white people to get anywhere in life (no chance of getting a university scholarship because of your skin colour, can't get into a decent university, end up working in a dead end job, etc), then that will always fuel the ascent of right-wing demagogues.