Why Diversity Offices Should Only Hire Straight White Men

Twitter has hired a new head of “diversity” and already some uber-progressive types are whinging because he is white and male. Preposterous! they cry. But they are wrong. Actually, only rich, straight white men should have anything to do with running diversity initiatives.

There’s a reason we don’t ask the victims of crimes to pick punishments: they lack perspective and clarity. They are likely to wildly overstate perceived infractions or slights and wildly over-punish alleged offenders.

Instead, we ask a judge to decide, because he is an educated, impartial observer. Similarly, mutatis mutandis, introducing that essential critical distance into the business of assessing so-called oppression and structural injustice is the only way to navigate the complex privilege league tables the progressive Left has created.

Who’s to say, for example, whether women’s rights trump those of Muslims? We can’t just ask the Muslim: of course he’ll say he wants sharia law and for women to cover up in public. Who’s to say whether a company should prioritise hiring more women over more blacks? Or more gays over more crossdressing paraplegic Syrian refugees?

Such decisions cannot be left in the hands of groups who are advocating for their own interests. They should be left to people without a dog in the fight. In other words, white males, the only people besides East Asians who can handle the theoretical physics and heavy-duty maths required to properly weigh the horrific life experiences of pampered western feminists and Black Lives Matter protestors.

When you allow identity politics to run rampant and you’re too terrified to question someone just because they have a certain skin colour, gender or sexual orientation, you create monsters, such as the national scandal that is taxpayer-funded Gender Studies courses in American universities.

And that’s before we even get to African Studies and the conspiracy theory-laden, brazenly historically ignorant “Afrocentric history” that is taught, with public money, on dozens if not hundreds of campuses in America. What these two joke disciplines have in common is runaway identity politics: women teach about gender; blacks about black history.

This is entirely wrong, and it’s obvious that the project hasn’t worked: what I call “minority wars” are erupting all over the West between competing victimised minorities, such as the hilarious battles between trannies and drag queens, or the row over “trans-exclusionary radical feminists.”

In an age of grievance politics, where victimhood is currency, only those outside the game of Oppression Olympics can properly adjudicate between aggrieved minorities. This is why I, as a gay man, am one of the few people you can trust to talk dispassionately about birth control, which is evil and makes women fat and crazy.

Otherwise, we are left with no option but to hand the reins over to the loudest or most aggressive minority, irrespective of the validity of their arguments. That leaves us with suicide bombers and trannies as the most powerful minorities in the west and you know what, no offence, but I don’t want private hiring decisions or, for that matter, public policy being influenced by either of them.

Obviously, the Left can’t figure this stuff out unassisted — so why not an injection of Enlightenment principles? Remember, it’s progressives who celebrate themselves as the champions of science and reason. When you hand someone a victimhood script and encourage them to see themselves as suffering under the yoke of The Man, they become inclined to see injustice everywhere.

70 per cent of American judges are still white men. Thank God for that! It’s only people free of so-called oppression — people who have no race, gender or sexuality-based disadvantages and who can argue from Rawls’s “original position” — who can truly sort through the ever-more complex jungle of the progressive stack.

It strikes me as plainly common-sensical that an outside, rigorously impartial judge should be appointed in any matter where a judgment has to be made following an allegation or as a result of a grievance. Justice has her blindfold and scales: diversity departments should have fat old white dudes blind to professional grievance mongers by an aura of privilege conferred by their fabulously expensive Harvard degrees.

Whenever I see a university diversity department or a corporate equality office packed to the gills with angry-looking Mexican lesbians and people in wheelchairs, I know that emotion and identity politics have overtaken reason and good judgment, and that feelings have been predicated over facts.

I come to suspect that the school or company in question doesn’t really care about diversity — if it did, it would follow my prescriptions — and instead just wants a black face for its website.

I also see danger on the horizon. As a result of the minority wars and the increasing social cache that comes with being black or gay or disabled, people are starting to acquire those identities even when they don’t really have them: witness the Rachel Dolezal phenomenon, or the epidemic of Tumblr teens calling themselves “genderqueer.” What new minorities will the progressive Left invent tomorrow?

(If you want to find the real villains, by the way, the horrific traitors within minorities who should be stopped at all costs, find those that achieved success without being coddled by a smug rich white person, like Herman Cain or Clarence Thomas.)

This is why all heads of diversity and indeed every employee of any diversity or equality department should be white men — the more privileged the better. After all, only rich, well-educated, well-connected heterosexual white males have the required detachment and lack of emotional connection to the issues at hand to make the right calls.

Diversity, as currently appreciated by the Left, is only skin-deep. What makes a difference to any enterprise or nation is diversity of thought. That’s what progressive grievance-mongers fear most — but it’s what made western civilisation a success.