Why Do White Male Liberals Push “Diversity”?
A Hypothesis
Listen to the audio narration of this article here.
Introduction:
No matter where you work or study, you’ve probably heard about just how committed leadership is to “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” especially now, post George Floyd. And if you’re culturally aware, you also know that triad is basically a leftist political dog whistle. Allow me to present an illustrative example for those naïve folks doggedly intent on giving the benefit of the doubt no matter what: The college I attend recently published their annual “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Task Force Report.” Among the findings in the massive report was a mundane statistic: The college was ~40% male and ~60% female, pretty typical of an American college. However, despite this massive gap, there was no mention as to how to make the college more “diverse” by representing the population proportionately, how to “include” males, or on how to engineer the “equal outcomes” dictated by “equity.” Conversely, the report was brimming with recommendations on how to include “underrepresented” groups such as Blacks and Hispanics (whom the report termed “Latinx”). This same sort of thing can be seen in virtually any close examination of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” initiatives.
The Failed Hypothesis:
But what leaves many who see through the blatant political propaganda perplexed is that many of these initiatives are driven by whites. The most common explanation is that the many whites who participate have been indoctrinated and guilted into it. Particularly, they believe this to be the case of young women, who are the overwhelming majority of students in leftist-dominated majors. However, this theory fails to explain the capitulation of older white male leadership to this infection within their organizations, and it also fails to explain why the aforementioned leadership frequently promote diversity, equity, and inclusion personally. So while it may be perfectly true that plenty of young white women are indoctrinated into radical leftism in college, this fails to explain why older white men also promote it. Incidentally, it also doesn’t comport with the success of leftist ideology. I mean, does anyone actually believe that starry-eyed liberal arts majors were the main force behind the rapid ascendency of SJW ideology? Clearly, another explanation is in order.
Hypothesis #1: Fear
The first potential explanation for this is fear. “Fear of what?” you might ask. Am I suggesting that the high-powered white business execs who push diversity are essentially doing so because their HR department has a gun to their head? No, I’m not suggesting that at all. The leftists in HR are the ones being vocal, and so it might be easy to think they are holding the gun, but really, it’s their accomplice, the mainstream (read: left-wing) media who is holding the gun. The media has such immense power to shape people’s perceptions and behavior, the argument goes, and since the media can irreparably damage the company overnight via bad press, the executives comply. This is not done by some pre-coordination between the media and HR. Rather, since they were educated in the same leftist seminaries, they don’t need to communicate; they both know what’s heresy and they both know that SJW orthodoxy must be enforced. Just so, finding two Presbyterian pastors preaching the same doctrine wouldn’t be evidence of prior coordination; they went to the same seminary and hold to the same confession.
What does this theory get right? It properly takes into account the role, influence, and power of the various branches of the Cathedral.1 It also is able to explain the sudden meteoric rise of SJW thinking. And while this theory does have tremendous explanatory power, I don’t think it explains everything. Going back to our earlier analogy, someone doing or saying something because they are forced to at gunpoint is qualitatively and perceivably different from someone doing or saying something because they want to or because they actually believe it. And yet frequently, white male leaders (such as at my college) enthusiastically push diversity and her corresponding sisters.2 So I think there’s at least a dimension of the diversity push which this theory doesn’t fully explain.
Hypothesis #2:
And my explanation would be this: It’s a way to stifle competition. The enthusiasm isn’t because they actually believe it – almost no one actually believes SJW talking points; most leftists just use them to exert power – rather, it’s because they’re quite happy about the results of “diversity.” Remember, many of the diversity quotas and measures also discriminate against east Asians as well as Whites. And east Asian and White males tend to make up a disproportionate percentage of the highest performers. And for white male leaders to apply forces to screen these people out is a way to protect oneself from competition in the future.
To put it succinctly, the many white leaders who push diversity do it out of self interest, not compulsion. The relationship between the leftist HR people and the white leaders who both push diversity, which at first appears parasitic, is actually mutualistic. The HR people, who are generally less intelligent and skilled than most professionals, benefit from “diversity” both professionally and in pushing their beliefs and placing roadblocks in front of people (white males) who may become right-wing elites in the future and could threaten their position. The current white male leadership benefits by shielding themselves from competitors.
This is the missing puzzle piece as it explains why the current white male leadership would enact policies which seem to go against their group interest. While it does go against their group interest, they are willing to selfishly harm their group to help themselves. This can of course be criticized from a moral perspective, but it makes perfect sense.
Conclusion:
So what’s the cash value of this theory? What’s the payout? Well it helps us break a few illusions.
White leadership generally does not push diversity because they are ignorant. Thus, “educating” them will not work.
White leadership generally does not push diversity because they are intimidated. Thus, sympathy and/or extending aid are likewise foolish strategies.
White leadership generally pushes diversity as a selfish strategy to further their own individual interests at the expense of their group. Thus, appeals to morality, ethics, loyalty, and honor are futile.
It’s not the IQ 108 HR folks who are the real culprits. Yes, they’re evil, but they’re like the clones in Star Wars. It’s the white male leaders who push diversity who are the Vaders and Emperors. Knowing what errors to avoid as well as the true nature and motivations of the enemy is essential to crafting a successful counterstrategy.
Author’s Note: As much as I hate to link to the left-wing news site (aka., rag) “Vox,” the image I pulled for the thumbnail came from an article over there with some interesting stats. So, though it pains me, here’s the link.
If you’re not familiar with “the Cathedral,” I would recommend this article. Obviously I don’t endorse everything therein, but it explains the basic concept of the Cathedral, which I think is basically accurate.