Why Equality and Diversity Departments Should Only Hire Rich, 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.

{snip}

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.

{snip}

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.

{snip}