Like me, you may have presumed the hoary cliche of Diversity is a Strength! had long since expired under a fusillade of ridicule. It seemed the input from a billion lying eyes had finally driven it out of active deployment. I hadn’t heard it mentioned in years other than as a sarcastic punchline. It’s sleek successor being a more pointed: Diversity is here. Now choke on it.
But that’s why we bury this sort of sophistry in the Earth’s molten core. Because deep down, it’s a really good idea. Though like so many other undead notions, this one yet lives.
What follows in bold are quoted excerpts from the article.
Corporations spend billions of dollars to attract and manage diversity both internally and externally, yet they still face discrimination lawsuits, and the leadership ranks of the business world remain predominantly white and male.
Thus every penny spent on “diversity” is an egregious waste? Or is the message that the NBA spends millions of dollars to scout and manage players, and yet their teams remain predominately black? I wonder how the rest of the world tackles this thorny issue?
They don’t suffer our lack of diversity at all it seems.
The fact is that if you want to build teams or organizations capable of innovating, you need diversity. Diversity enhances creativity.
It encourages the search for novel information and perspectives
Even simply being exposed to diversity can change the way you think
on average female representation in top management leads to an increase of $42 million in firm value
We put together three-person groups—some consisting of all white members, others with two whites and one nonwhite member—and had them perform a murder mystery exercise. We made sure that all group members shared a common set of information, but we also gave each member important clues that only he or she knew. To find out who committed the murder, the group members would have to share all the information they collectively possessed during discussion. The groups with racial diversity significantly outperformed the groups with no racial diversity. Being with similar others leads us to think we all hold the same information and share the same perspective. This perspective, which stopped the all-white groups from effectively processing the information, is what hinders creativity and innovation.
Sommers composed the six-person juries with either all white jurors or four white and two black jurors. As you might expect, the diverse juries were better at considering case facts, made fewer errors recalling relevant information and displayed a greater openness to discussing the role of race in the case.
As you might expect, the less-white juries were better. For no reason whatsoever I continue all these years later to marvel at such cavalier insults. White inferiority is simply what one expects to find–and one does!
Less white juries are better since blacks are models of sober jurisprudence. And as a surprising additional benefit they also bring a greater openness to discussing the role of race in a trial–and we all know how legendarily reticent they are in broaching that topic.
Then also the studious refusal to extrapolate the premise into anything beyond calls for fewer whites in the West. The world is teeming with examples of non-white monochrome leadership cadres. Presumably all of these would benefit from being reconstituted with fewer of the powerful figures now comprising them. Though suggesting such recourse can quickly end a lucrative snake-oil career and so studies fail to test and authors do not speculate. As you might expect.
So much cant, so much hypocrisy, so much science!
The point these ridiculous sophists are attempting to convey is that sound decision making benefits from the participation of a devil’s advocate perspective. A perspective that requires the replacement of whites in their countries and businesses no more than does the presence of ethnic cuisine. But we should always remember that people will more readily fall victim to the big result-oriented expedient than to a small one.