Two common misconceptions about diversity are (1) that it means “all inclusive” and (2) that it is inherently a good thing. In fact, diversity means varied; and whether or not it is beneficial depends on one’s ability to effectively discriminate.
Aesthetic diversity has no functional value. In order for diversity to enhance the productivity of a group, there must be a common fundamental premise or objective; and the ability and willingness to contribute substantially to that objective. Therefore, the group must discriminate between those elements which embrace the commonality and those that do not.
For example, when Paul Ryan and Patty Murray got together in 2013 to negotiate a budget, there was mutual acceptance of fundamental precepts. They clearly established their common objective; negotiating a budget agreement that would garner bipartisan support and avoid a government shutdown. Pursuant to that objective they mutually agreed to exclude contentious issues which would polarize the parties; such as Obamacare and immigration. Consequently they were able to merge diverse philosophies and present a budget that won bipartisan approval in Congress.
Diversity is counterproductive when aesthetics or advocacy take precedent over substance. Race and gender consistently fail to inform as to a person’s qualifications and are therefore ineffective criteria for assessing suitability.
In mandating the inclusion of persons on the basis of race; or other factors having absolutely no implication as to those persons’ qualifications; and prohibiting the exclusion of persons of a certain race or gender; notwithstanding their qualifications, or lack thereof, Affirmative Action has repeatedly demonstrated the adverse effects of indiscriminate diversity; which is why many institutions are abandoning the practice, with the blessing of the court.
There is no empirical evidence attributing the success of any enterprise to an aesthetically diverse workforce or inclusion of persons due to their sexual propensities or other extraneous interests. Assertions to the contrary are subjective and unfounded.
Even the lgbt subculture, which vociferously advocates for inclusivity, excludes certain people; notwithstanding a shared propensity for sexual deviancy. This is because the success of the lgbt mission; validation and retribution, requires lgbt to discriminate against those whose inclusion would adversely affect its efforts.
Discrimination based on varying degrees of available talent, ability, experience and creativity is requisite to success. If an aesthetically diverse group does not result from this process it reflects a lack of aesthetic diversity among qualified candidates in a given population.
Indiscriminate inclusiveness is never an asset and often a liability. Aesthetic diversity that is not an incidental consequence of effective discrimination is a fruitless folly.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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