The Democratic Party’s Unethical And Irrational Obsession With Diversity, Part Two: Amazingly, It’s Even Worse Than I Thought

On December 14, 2019, I posted “The Democratic Party’s Unethical And Irrational Obsession With Diversity” at a point where I concluded that the Left’s diversity con had reached res ipsa loquitur dimensions, at least for Americans still capable of hearing what this res was loquituring despite years of pummeling by consultants and diversity seminars. That would be that “diversity” is a cover word for “quotas and affirmative action.”

I’ve been in some of those seminars; to my undying shame, I’ve even taught a couple for a fee. They are intellectually dishonest to the core, resting on the Bizarro World  argument that more diverse groups and bodies are necessarily better, wiser, and more effective than  homogeneous groups with more ability and talent. This is manifestly nonsense, except that it is not politically correct to say so. Is President Trump’s Cabinet better in any way because Ben Carson is Secretary of HUD? He’s a dolt, as anyone who watched the GOP Presidential debates knows beyond a shadow of a doubt. Is the Supreme Court better because Justice Sotomayor is on it? Read one of her opinions and then try to say that with a straight face.

The proof that diversity activism is a rationalization-based scam is everywhere, with the fact that it is only applied in one direction the smoking res. Nobody argues that NBA and NFL teams would be better of they had demographics closer to the nation’s. The Oscars were attacked because there aren’t “enough” black performers or female directors nominated this year, but no one complains about the lack of diversity in all-black awards shows. The impetus for December post was all the Democratic and mainstream media flesh-rending over the fact that the erstwhile Presidential candidates “of color” had been so weak and feckless that even Democrats had rejected them. “But…but..diversity!

Pointing to the Washington Post’s assessment of the top 13 people with the best chance of being on the party’s ticket as Vice President—all are women, minorities or both—I wrote, “What subliminal message are Democrats sending to the world when they exclude straight, white men as qualified candidates for Vice-President? That’s easy. They are saying that the party cares more about diversity than it does about leading the nation.”

Diversity without rigging the result can be a valuable measure of how race, ethnicity and gender-blind the culture has become, but the fact that any group or body happens to appear diverse is itself no indication of excellence. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying or deluded.

I thought the bloviating about the Democratic debate line-up was as ridiculous as this sham could get, Boy was I wrong.

First, as reported by the Washington Examiner, Senator Elizabeth Warren promised Wednesday that “at least 50% of Cabinet positions [will be] filled by women and non-binary people.” To begin with Warren has to stay in her lane: she’s the official shameless demagogue in the Democratic field; Pete Buttigieg is the shameless panderer. That aside, Warren’s announcement explicitly rejects excellence, experience and relevant credentials at the highest level of government in deference to diversity for its own sake. What’s your guess regarding the size of the pool of Cabinet-qualified “non-binary” individuals? My guess: minuscule. Warren’s promise shows us what her priority is, and it isn’t excellence in governing.

Then, yesterday, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin revealed how diversity can’t had eaten his brain. Even as he opined that the President’s defense in the Senate impeachment trial was “winning,” he complained that the defense team was not sufficient diverse.

“White House and white people,” Toobin said. “This is a lesson in the diversity of the two parties — I mean you look at the House managers. It was almost evenly divided between men and women. You had two African-Americans, you had a Hispanic. It was all white men today, there are allegedly two white women on the team — we’ll see if they’re allowed to argue. But I think, you know, in a visual medium, when you have one side that has a very diverse team and the other side that’s all white men, that says something in and of itself.”

Yeah, you know what it says, you hack? It says that the defense team was chosen according to who was most likely to do the best job. When advocates in trials are chosen based on any other rationale, you know what happens?

They lose, that’s what. I was just watching again “The People vs. O.J. Simpson,” and reminded that the prosecution was deliberately made up of a woman and an African American, the former so blinded by her feminist agenda that she made one bias-based blunder after another, and the latter so inexperienced and emotional that he made the decisive mistake with O.J.’s gloves. What the prosecution needed to go up against a high-priced assembly of some of the best defense attorneys in America were the most experienced, effective prosecutors available, and diversity be damned.

Yet here is Toobin, saying on live television without a hind of comprehension, that the White House and Republicans should have thought, “Never mind preventing the Democrats from succeeding in their attempt to defy democracy and overthrow an elected President, or convincing the basically uninformed public that the President has committed impeachable offenses when there is no evidence of that whatsoever. The important thing is to have a defense team with some African Americans, Hispanics, and non-binary lawyers!”

The Left in politics, education, law, entertainment, media and the professions have been repeating this alternate reality for decades now, hoping to brainwash us all into believing it makes sense., that it’s “the right thing to do.” Diversity for diversity’s sake is neither. Quotas are discrimination and bias rationalized. Those who understand this must be vocal and persuasive.


Please us this link to share on Facebook:


16 thoughts on “The Democratic Party’s Unethical And Irrational Obsession With Diversity, Part Two: Amazingly, It’s Even Worse Than I Thought

  1. Jack, it’s conceptually a fine post, but you might want to have a re-read on this one. It’s loaded with typos and syntax errors – enough that I’d say it requires combing through rather than my flagging one or two. I know you take great pride in your writing, so I suspect you won’t have a problem with this recommendation.

  2. Mrs. OB went to a presentation on the upcoming census (cleverly branded as “United States Census 2020”). The outside of the shiny census taker recruitment portfolio she was presented with features six photos of models portraying already happily employed census workers and two photos of disembodied census worker hands and forearms knocking on doors. Both of the hands are of color, one black, the other less so but still of color. The six census workers are: a white guy in his forties with a beard and receding hairline, an apparently Japanese guy also in his forties, a Chinese or Filipino woman in her thirties or forties, a young twenty-something black woman, a young twenty-something Hispanic guy and finally, a young twenty-something Native American or Pacific Islander woman. They’re all pictured walking around with government issued lanyards, IDs, satchels and cell phones looking off to the horizon as if they’ve all gone to look for America humming Simon and Garfunkel. I just hope these census workers count the actual populous rather than the one their employers want them (and us) to imagine.

    • By the way, the last line on the back of D-1568/April 2019 merrily informs us “The U.S. Census Bureau is an Equal Opportunity Employer.” I’m shocked.

      “[T]he Bizarro World argument that more diverse groups and bodies are necessarily better, wiser, and more effective than homogeneous groups with more ability and talent. This is manifestly nonsense, except that it is not politically correct to say so.” Concise and brilliant.

  3. Yesterday, my wife told me about Toobin’s statements. My first thought was, “I wonder if Jack will comment on that.” Funny how spending time at this site makes you think that way.

    I’ve had conversations – well, debates actually – with others on a couple of occasions regarding quotas and diversity, and I’ve always led with the idea that any racial quota discriminates against minorities. When they look at me like I’ve lost my mind, I simply explain that quotas may force highly-qualified minorities to be passed over in favor of lesser-qualified whites because an employer is probably required to hire a certain number of whites.

    I don’t know that quotas work precisely like that, but it’s one way I try to get the other side of the argument to see that the practice can hurt minorities as much as they think it helps.

    • Quotas never seem to work that way. There is never a minimum quota of white people required. As Jack points out, the magic of “diversity” only seems to work in one direction…

      A better argument against quotas and “affirmative action” policies is that it plants the suspicion that minority employees have gotten their jobs, at least in part, based solely on their physical qualities, rather than their qualifications, skills, and abilities. That’s obviously not always the case, but it’s an unnecessary hurdle that minorities have to overcome in workplaces that practice this nonsense.

    • I like two angles of attack on affirmative action.

      One is to mention that affirmative action is used to deny higher performing Asians over whites.

      The other is to use the NBA’s and NFL’s glaring lack of Hispanics, Asians and native Americans. Point out that in the NBA, they should have a rule that one of the five on the court should be Asian, Hispanic or native American. If every team had to comply, it would make play fair. Further, only one in five should be black for fairness too.

      It is stupid and rediculois. Then again, so is affirmative action.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.