Most major colleges have some sort of Diversity™, minority or multicultural department in charge of making people of color (POC) feel comfortable and providing opportunities for them to network. Alternatively, they serve as beachheads in the university system for the ongoing White dispossession of the United States, helping to bring in greater numbers of non-Whites than their educational attainment or cognitive abilities often merit, e.g. through affirmative action and ethnic nepotism. Of course, no such institutions exist for White students, nor would they be allowed to. Diversity™, that is, the presence of less White people, is just so inherently good and beneficial to an organization that it requires a makework bureaucracy to make it happen and enforce its continued presence.
In recent years, Diversity™ initiatives have breached the business world and now many companies—both high-revenue and startup—are literally creating jobs for the sake of Diversity™. Sorry, goyim, you need to share your jobs too, not just wealth. Unequal racial or gender outcomes require our egalitarian-minded stewards to intervene in order to preserve and promulgate their worldview. Because if Diversity is Our Greatest Strength®, why don’t successful enterprises have more of it?
According to business-news themed clickbait site Inc.com:
The spotlight and the magnifying glass have been on tech companies' dismal diversity numbers for the past year. Hiring diverse candidates shouldn’t have to be a struggle. Yet, the latest numbers from companies like Facebook and Intel show that the needle is barely moving. As a result, there's a new position in fashion within tech company c-suites: say hello to the head of diversity. Recently spotted job listings show tech companies are making diversity an executive level position.
Ding ding ding. Diversity™! No explanation—just keep drumming it in. We need more of it! Companies are basically hiring "Chief Diversity Officers," if they didn’t already have them. We can’t all be cutting-edge progressives from the get-go; some organizations need an extra push. Whether this is due to media campaigns from leftist journalists, internal initiatives, or both is hard to generalize, but the fact of the matter is that the Diversity is Our Greatest Strength® meme has taken root among the business elite. They nominally believe that a diverse workforce, whatever that means, is better than, say, meritocracy or standardization.
Not to sound cuckservative here, but what happened to judging people by the content of their character? Or their skills? It’s the current year, shitlord; colorblindedness is an expression of White supremacist racism/patriarchy/capitalism. Tolerance has given way to preference. The newer left supports overt POC tribalism, marking a definitive shift away from trying to be palatable to White goyim. Gibsmedats now include jobs, not just entitlement programs.
Furthermore, since this wonderful and value-adding Diversity™ did not naturally occur, people need to be hired in order to help diversify companies, costing time, money, and workplace cohesiveness. Affirmative action has gone meta and now there are jobs solely reserved for POC to hire more POC. For the left, this means that the workforce will be more diverse and therefore better, because reasons. From an alt-right perspective, this is simply a bureaucracy enabling non-White ethnic networking. It is a kind of spoils system—no Diversity™ department heads or diversity hires are White men. But the C-Suite, which we are constantly told is too White and too male, is all too happy to adopt Diversity™.
One recent Diversity™ headline involved a Muslim flight attendant (lol) from Michigan and highlights how ridiculous the whole mantra is. Muslims can't have alcohol so this one refused to serve it to customers even though it was her job. She got the airline to accommodate her, since she's a protected class, but then her coworkers complained and her privilege of doing less work was revoked. She is suing the carrier. The airline's response:
"At ExpressJet, we embrace and respect the values of all of our team members. We are an equal opportunity employer with a long history of diversity in our workforce. As Ms. Stanley is an employee, we are not able to comment on her personnel matters."
You're being sued over Diversity™, you cuck. Remind me how this benefits you? And this is just one recent example.
The reason why proselytizing of Diversity™ is so effective in academia and business is two-fold. First, the United States is the least White it has ever been, so if you believe that all outcomes in society should reflect our demographic breakdown to the decimal, you have obvious grounds to attack White- or jewish-dominated institutions like the business sphere. A larger non-white population means a larger share of the workforce must be non-white. White symbols have to go from the public eye, and White people next. Taking a long view of things suggests a slow genocide. Secondly, arguing against Diversity™ is politically incorrect, immoral, or just wrong. You could only oppose it on racist grounds. Opposing it is implicitly pro-White and anti-POC, ergo evil. Supporting it is, of course, anti-racist, anti-White, and therefore good. The Manichean world we live in demands it. Studies proving that Diversity™ is generally not good, historical examples of diverse societies collapsing from infighting, and one’s own heuristic or common-sense experiences with multicultural dysfunctionality are irrelevant at best and heresy at worst.
Relatively homogeneous societies invest more in public goods, indicating a higher level of public altruism. For example, the degree of ethnic homogeneity correlates with the government's share of gross domestic product as well as the average wealth of citizens. Case studies of the United States, Africa and South-East Asia find that multi-ethnic societies are less charitable and less able to cooperate to develop public infrastructure. Moscow beggars receive more gifts from fellow ethnics than from other ethnies [sic]. A recent multi-city study of municipal spending on public goods in the United States found that ethnically or racially diverse cities spend a smaller portion of their budgets and less per capita on public services than do the more homogeneous cities. —ethnologist Frank Salter
While it’s always clear from our perspective what Diversity™ actually entails, I honestly have no idea what those who sincerely believe in it are thinking. How do we truly qualify Diversity™ and benefits? Aren't businessmen and academics smarter than this? There’s some vague notion that having multiple perspectives is valuable to education and business, and vague as it is, we cannot prove it right or wrong per se. But Diversity™ prophets are creating a false dichotomy in thinking we need enforced gender or racial pluralism to have multiple perspectives. There’s an old jew joke which postulates that two jews in a room will have three opinions, for example.
And how many countries is the White race split across over ethnic and political reasons? Groups have their own internal diversity without bringing in even more divisions. Such artificial appends would only serve to bloat, not better. Clearly an organization made up of people of different languages and cultures would be outperformed by a more homogeneous one that can communicate across its personnel more effectively and inspire more group trust and loyalty. Like in the armed forces.
But does the business world—so dedicated to efficiency—truly believe in the merits of Diversity™? There are some stats on this—more on that later—but that approach has its limits. I think it’s a question that can’t truly be satisfied. Thinking at the margin, if hiring some staff for non-merit reasons improves the firm's public image, they're going to do it. The consumer demand that corporations signal diversity has real value. On the other hand, they aren’t going to hand over their entire organization to #BlackLivesMatter or fresh-over-the-border mestizos. They know that corporate culture is strongly something that Whites, jews and Asians excel at and if they want any kind of meritocracy and therefore quality results, they will need to stick to this. So I think that most of the Diversity™ they end up hiring isn’t going to be the kind the left had in mind; it’s going to be heavily white-presenting. It has to be—or the jobs that go to Diversity™ have to be ceremonial, like Chief Diversity Officer. Not to mention that everyone isn't quite on board yet.
People who benefit from Diversity™ hiring initiatives view them more favorably than those who do not. In a Quartz article entitled “Women care more about boardroom diversity than men—and not just in terms of gender,”—note that Quartz is a sister site of The Atlantic—we learn that a majority of female directors and a minority of male directors think Diversity™ 1.) is important, 2.) improves company performance, and 3.) enhances board effectiveness. Inadvertently highlighting the counter-intuitiveness of Diversity™ hiring, the article notes that:
Inertia can be hard to overcome, though, especially for companies that have been performing well despite a lack of boardroom diversity. A majority of survey respondents say that financial acumen, industry expertise, operational nous, and risk-management knowledge are key attributes that their boards should have. Gender diversity ranked lower on the list (39%) and racial diversity lower than that (30%).
When there is no clear incentive to convert to Diversity™—or rather, when the ones that exist are ambiguous or dependent on who benefits—people won't. So really, the only people who genuinely believe in Diversity™ are its beneficiaries, jewish leadership, and a hostile elite, who are simply more motivated in proselytizing for it than everyone is in opposing it. You know, since that would be racist.