Slate’s feminist food blogger, L.V. Anderson, has a new post explaining how Corporate Diversity Policies Often Harm the People They’re Intended to Help, helpfully explaining how to implement a diversity program which effectively harms the people they’re intended to harm. She cites a Harvard Business Review article, “Diversity Policies Rarely Make Companies Fairer, and They Feel Threatening to White Men.”
In one study, white men took part in a simulated job interview. When they were told that the company they were interviewing with embraced diversity, they worried about being at a disadvantage—and their heart rates rose, suggesting they felt threatened.
Science has confirmed that White males know what they refuse to publicly admit, that diversity is a code word for anti-White. L.V. Anderson doesn’t bother to grapple with whether or not good and honest people’s jobs are actually threatened by diversity policies. This is because she actively despises and dehumanizes White men. Like many (but not all!) White women, she envisions herself aligned with team diversity against the White male.
Diversity training sessions can backfire, too—especially when the trainings are mandatory and emphasize the legal consequences of discrimination. Attempting to change attitudes about diversity by emphasizing the social unacceptability of prejudice actually increases prejudice by triggering “a direct counterresponse (i.e., defiance) to threatened autonomy” (in other words, by triggering people’s inner toddlers).
The White male is integrally lacking validity. His job isn’t valid. His ideas aren’t valid. His contributions to the corporation aren’t valid. His concerns aren’t valid. Even his visceral biometrics are appropriate targets of mockery. As an exercise, pretend to communicate in such a dehumanizing manner about another group and you’ll appreciate how anti-White L.V. Anderson’s line of thinking is. “Proposing literacy tests at the polling stations causes a direct counterresponse in Black men, triggering their inner toddlers.”
And policies that constrain managers—for instance, requiring them to consider job tests and performance reviews when making hiring and promotion decisions—seem to reduce diversity rather than increase it.
Of course, you can’t just make it strictly meritocratic. That would just play right into the hands of White males. Any threat to the good old boy network would come from Asian male applicants, and nobody on either side of this argument cares for that outcome.
“Policies and trainings tend to piss people off more than anything,” one corporate diversity professional in New York told me. “It causes resentment.”
That doesn’t mean all diversity policies are counterproductive. It’s true that most such programs aren’t tested for effectiveness before implementation, which means that many executives are spending money on useless or counterproductive initiatives.
They define success strictly in terms of replacing White males, and yet they manage to be baffled that White males would feel resentful or threatened. They obviously are threatened, and should resent less connected and qualified people stealing their livelihood.
Fortunately for anti-Whites, there is an effective strategy for achieving diversity goals.
So which diversity policies actually work? […] In a paper published last year, Dobbin, Kalev, and their colleague Daniel Schrage argue that successful policies rely on engagement, accountability, and transparency. First, they engage managers in diversity efforts, so that managers feel like they’re a part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Diversity task forces “are just hugely effective compared to the other things that companies can do,” Dobbin told me.
In short, the trick to achieving diversity goals is to set aside a team of White males who are protected from diversity on the condition that they impose diversity on the other subset. Pit the White males against each other in an occupational Mortal Kombat and watch the sparks fly!
If you want something done right and on time, you hire a White male to get the job done, even when that job’s purging White males. Twitter recently caught heat for hiring a “White” male to head its diversity program, but it makes sense. If your company absolutely must hire against merit and talent or get sued out of business, then you hire the guy with the merit and talent to make it happen. To Twitter’s credit, he’s actually Jewish and gay, not that either gays, Jews, or gay Jews are especially underprivileged or underrepresented.
Given that situation, the fact that good-faith attempts to educate managers about diversity can make white men feel and act defiant might make women and people of color throw up their hands in frustration. Can’t white male managers get over themselves and stop being defensive about efforts to make workplaces more inclusive?
Just about all White males, self-exclusive, have a powerful urge to look and feel like morally upstanding team players. They’re eager to throw their co-workers under the bus with abandon to virtue signal. But if you hit too close to home, threatening his livelihood, threatening his neighborhood, or threatening his children’s safety, he’ll be cornered. Each time the music stops, there’s one less chair in the circle for White males. You can expect the fights between them to get uglier and uglier until they learn to pick up the chairs and throw them at the anti-Whites running the game.