MOST OF US UNDERSTAND why a big company might need a CEO, CFO, CIO and COO. But a top-level diversity boss? What’s that about?
Today there are CDOs in the executive suites of most U.S. corporations, including AT&T, Dell, Bank of America, Johnson & Johnson and Procter & Gamble, as well as at the helm of such leading universities as Harvard, Princeton and Yale. Each of these is a member of some minority — African American, Hispanic, Asian and/or female. There are no Anglo-American CDOs, even though in states like California Anglos are already a de facto minority.
Curious about this new leadership anomaly, I decided to Google it. The first source address that popped up was an article in Scientific American titled “How Diversity Makes Us Smarter,” by Katherine W. Phillips. Ms. Phillips is a “professor of leadership and ethics” at Columbia Business School, which, one might suppose, makes her something of an expert. Given the title of her article, Professor Phillips certainly begins it with a peculiar question: “What good comes from diversity of race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation?”
The professor then answers her own question with these grim observations: “Research has shown that social diversity in a group can cause discomfort, rougher interactions, a lack of trust, greater perceived interpersonal conflict, lower communication, less cohesion, more concern about disrespect, and other problems.”
So how does that make us smarter? The professor doesn’t say. All she does is change the subject by asking a cliché question: “So what’s the upside?” Her answer, of course, is another sweeping cliché: “Diversity enhances creativity. It encourages the search for novel information and perspectives, leading to better decision making and problem solving.” Such as, perhaps, teaching sixth graders the population control advantages of cannibalism in aboriginal cultures?
This cliché is followed by yet another: “Diversity can improve the bottom line of companies and lead to unfettered discoveries and breakthrough innovations.” So it was diversity that enabled Steve Jobs to invent the iPhone?
“Even simply being exposed to diversity,” the professor asserts, “can change the way you think.” As, for example, in the case of a young woman growing up in a lesbian household becoming convinced she’s really a man?
“This is not just wishful thinking,” Professor Phillips assures us, “it is the conclusion I draw from decades of research from organizational scientists, psychologists, sociologists, economists and demographers.” So we’re supposed to believe this simply because it’s the professor’s conclusion? Such an argument certainly sounds American, but it’s hardly scientific.
Convinced that some smart spokeswoman somewhere must have a more specific and coherent explanation, I selected an online USA Today article titled “Google’s diversity chief started her crusade young.” Surely a practicing CDO at Google would know something about diversity.
Written by USA Today profiler Marco della Cava, this article quotes extensively from his source, Nancy Lee, Google’s 44-year-old Chinese-American “director of diversity and inclusion.” Self-described as a crusader for social justice, Ms. Lee pulls no punches. She obviously shared some pretty serious problems she has with her employer’s current bad stats: “Some 83 percent of Google tech workers are male. The workforce is 61 percent white, 30 percent Asian, 3 percent Hispanic and 2 percent African-American.”
Since she first took her CDO job at Google in 2006, Ms. Lee has initiated such “transformative” programs as an employee diversity training program that includes “a 90-minute lecture designed to sensitize people to their own hidden biases” and what Ms. Lee calls a “Googler In Residence program” that assigns Google employees to historically black colleges “to help guide the schools’ computer science programs.” One can’t help wondering how many Caucasian geek minds and hearts have been changed by Ms. Lee’s 90-minute sensitivity training lectures.
More to the point, why hasn’t Ms. Lee pushed Google management to create some paid internship programs for students from those historically black colleges? She claims that “students at community and state colleges with Google-grade computer programs are now in the company’s sights.” Only “in the company’s sights”? After nine years on the job, Ms. Lee ought to have gotten way beyond just lining up sights. But maybe having a CDO at Google is just politically correct window dressing.
Or maybe this whole diversity shtick is just a diversion — at best, another clumsy attempt to make a politically correct silk purse out of a blatantly discriminatory sow’s ear. According to Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, the ugly truth is, “the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings.”
Putnam’s observations here are consistent with what Professor Phillips has said about the “discomfort” that results from “social diversity in a group.” But, for some, this might seem to suggest that problems associated with diversity in a social group are something new in America.
As the well-known author and scholar Charles Murray has explained: “America was founded on British political and legal traditions that remain the bedrock of the American system to this day. But even at the time of the Founding, Americans were as culturally diverse as they are today. … the differences separating Yankees, Quakers, Cavaliers and Scots-Irish at the Founding were at least as many and as divisive as those that separate different ethnic groups in America today.”
“Today’s America,” Murray explains, “is once again a patchwork of cultures that are different from one another and often in tension. What they share in common with the cultures of pre-World War I America is that they require freedom. In one way or another, the members of most of the new subcultures want to be left alone in ways that the laws of the nation, strictly observed, will no longer let them.”
What Murray is alluding to here is the intrusive role of what he calls “the regulatory state.” Whether it is the IRS, SEC, EPA, FDA, FAA, FCC, DOE, DOJ, HHS, HUD or any of the many other alphabet-soup agencies, we private citizens are under continuous surveillance and interference from unelected, indolent, incompetent and often corrupt Beltway bureaucrats.
It is not racial hatred or the lack of sufficient diversity in our workplaces, schools and universities that is causing so much divisiveness in our nation. It is our failure to understand what Murray calls “the quotidian culture” of our own communities.
Murray explains it this way: “The primary source of quotidian cultural diversity throughout American history and continuing today, independently of one’s ethnicity, religion, wealth, politics or sexual orientation, is the size of the place where people live.” Thus, if you live in a big city like New York or Los Angeles and you have a problem with your water bill, “you must to deal with an anonymous bureaucracy.”
If you live in a small town or city of 25,000 or less, Murray observes, your daily life is much different. “For one thing, people of different ethnicities and socioeconomic classes are thrown together a lot more. … Hardly anyone in a town or small city is anonymous. … Repeated encounters tend to generate personal sympathies, understandings and affiliations.”
The good news in all of this is that, as of the 2010 Census, there are just as many small communities (25,000 or less) in America as there are big cities like Chicago, New York and Los Angeles. Murray’s conclusion is that “people in places other than the megalopolises need a lot less oversight from higher levels of government than they’re getting.”
In other words: “That government is best which governs least.” This is one cliché the Founders would certainly have agreed with.
Bruce Robinson is a writer and former Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
Good to see you here again Bruce!
Some one needs to be honest regarding this ‘diversity’ scam.
That’s OK, Bruce, you go on ironing your Confederate flag museum piece while Leonard Cohen sings,” Old Black Joe’s still picking cotton for your buttons and your bows…everybody knows…” Fortunately for you and Dennis Lund, not everything is flat white bread and a scam…was there some point in what you wrote or do all your biscuits arrive equally as flat? I say hooray for diversity, it beats bigotry and white male, sour, dour, patriarchal bias any day of the week…Wait’ll we have a female President, that’ll really cook your berries! pb
Peter I thought we were over these personal attacks. But I see they are back by not only you but another commentor. Very sad situation and it will bring personal atacks right back at you folks. Be nice Peter I know you can.
What do you think Bruce;
President Fiorina?
Or maybe
President Palen?
Good call Dennis. The articles was very good and pointed out reality. Bryuse is not what he is being called by the commentor. I kinow him and he is a very fine and bright person. RerALITY
President Trump will put a stop to all this diversity nonsense.
Both Fiorina and Palin are smart and attractive women who have proven their skills, but somehow I think Nikki Haley may be the best bet, especially given her role in the recent flag flutter. Americans tend to have short memories, alas!
Thanks for the welcome back to our virtual homes,
Just wish the editors had included the hyper-links in my diversity piece in case someone wanted to check my resources, so I’l reference the original article here, where the hyperlinks are still available: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/the_diversity_diversion.html
Sorry for the typos hit the button to quick. Should be Bruce. Last word should not be there. Thanks for the patience.
………………………………….
“It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”
-Charles Darwin
Dear Sir,
It’s hard changing when the world seems to change radically everyday. But we need to become a species that can adapt to change if we want to survive.
Your commentary reflects those of us who have dug in the heels and don’t want any part of all this changing stuff!
Your title says all that needs to be said about your position.
But there is only one diversion I see here, and that is trivializing the value of learning about diverse cultures in our country.
This commentary reveals those of us who prefer not to look at ourselves and the role each of us plays in this drama. Most importantly, the article reflects the mindset that blocks any possibility of dialogue that could make all of our lives better.
Sincerely,
Jane Hara
Dear Ms. Hara,
Maybe you should read Ann Coulter’s Adios, America!
BR
Dear Mr. Robinson,
I will take a pass on your recommendation because I don’t appreciate how Coulter omits information that does not support her position. ( eg, undocumented immigrants do not receive welfare or food stamps.) Although it seems to me she’d be the perfect running mate for Donald Trump.
The best response I have to Ann Coulter, Donald Trump and Mr. Robinson follows; I could never say it better!
Jane Hara
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/america-ferrera/thank-you-donald-trump_b_7709126.html
Jane,
I have a friend who works in a book store and read Ann’s book over a couple of lunch breaks. She said it was the most vile and racist thing she had ever read.
Maybe we should thank Bruce for giving us more insight into who he is.
I am very dissapointed at the personal attacks on Mr. Robinson. You do not know him. The last three comments were very anti Mr. Robinson without merit. I have also been attacked by the locals. I do not care but some of the remarksd that are associated to Mr. Robinson about what was in someone elses book are vicious and uncalled for. If you do not agree I believe he would except that. But a vicious attack on him shows weakness and lack of understanding. You do not agree so the answer is attack and name calling. I do believe you three should be above that.
I am always amused by the reaction of people who rely on movie stars as the sole source of their news. The core of Ms. Ferrera’s argument is that “immigrants are what made this nation.” The historical fact is, it was British citizens who wrote this nation’s Constitution and it is that document that “made” this nation.. But then I guess Honduran movie stars don’t have to read, especially since English is the white man’s language. So, in the final analysis, that makes Ms. Ferrera just as much a racist as Donald Trump.
Don’t you people ever get tired of this stuiff?
The bigotry just keeps coming.
Weren’t the British immigrants?
The British wereColonizers and freely invited others into this wonderful country we call the United States of America. join this wonderful country you might like it.
Well except for thousands of black slaves and poor, white indentured servants (who were, essentially slaves because most of them never lived to “pay off” their indentures), most of whom actually did the work but were far, far from freely invited! While they were freely inviting others, they also slaughtered or infected the generous and welcoming natives as well. So, while I do love the US of A and totally love the ideals (Enlightenment ideals, NOT Christian ones) which formed probably the greatest political experiment in history – the US Constitution, I don’t delude myself into thinking that everything is just a bowl of cherries, either in our past history or nowadays. We still have a long, long way to go to live up to those ideals in many places.
J I suggest you go bACK and look at the history of slavery in the United States. The North forced a ten year extensions when the south said no more slaves. All because the North owned all the slave ships. Greedy northerners. Better get up to date before you start making statement that you no nothing about. It appears you have joined the bigoted crowd also. That I am surprised at.
I don’t believe I mentioned any particular states or regions in my comments about slaves or indentured servants. In the 17th and 18th centuries ALL colonies and MOST European countries were involved in the slave trade in some form or another. So, please, stop skewing my comments to fit a preconceived notion of what I mean. I have 2 degrees in history – B.A. and M.A., so I do happen to have some familiarity with that subject and have read extensively on it. I also spent several years on a native reservation, so have firsthand experience in how those folks were treated as well. The point I was making, because you seemed to have missed it, is: when you say the British were colonists (although natives already “owned’ the land and considered them immigrants) that “freely” welcomed “others,” make sure you are clear that the “others” were white men who owned property of some kind when they landed and who stole property once they arrived.
By the way where is the bigotry? You use the term bigotry freely like you own it.. Could it not be you are the one not intolerant of others.
You got me. I’m the one not intolerant of others.
My comment should have had the word not left out my mistake. I do believe you are intolerant of others.. Maybe you are the bigot.. Now that sounds better.
Weren’t the British immigrants?
No. They were settlers (or colonists) in an open land and unclaimed land area.
As I said Dennis. I fully agree.
Semantics. That is history from the POV of the “colonists.” The natives, who had lived and worked the land for thousands of years probably saw them as immigrants, yet they welcomed them freely, kept them from starving to death, then were paid off by slaughter, slavery (in CA), disease and internment. This romantic view of the first Europeans here is what has kept us from seriously addressing the problems of class and racism we continue to face.
I am always amused by folks that hold an old movie star as a great former president.
Clinton was never a movie star nor was Carter. You are very confused. just what are you talking about?
George and June? Musicians as far as I know. Neither of them were president. Next.
“Ann Coulter is living proof that you can’t make a silk purse out of a horse’s ass”
― Andrew Breitbart
Apparently, they eat their own.
It has always been so. The kids with all the toys in the sandbox resent the intrusion of new kids who might want to share, so they hang on like crazy as long as they can to “their” toys. They lament the widening of the playground’s boundaries and complain to the teacher that they are being picked upon. It is very, very interesting that in the vast, vast majority of cases, those who complain about sharing are universally white and male. The responses here clearly follow that pattern.
So well said, jfurlong.
I’ve noticed the same pattern.
White and male. J give us examples just who these white males are. Do Bruce, Bob Livesay, Dennis {DDL} fit into that group?
Bruce,
Remember as kids when you played in the schoolyard there was always at least one kid who thought they were smarter than everyone else? They always seemed to think their ideas were the best, so they always took charge and made up their own rules. If you bested them in a more difficult subject, such as math, they would always change topics so as not to embarrass themselves. They also always had to have the last word, as they simply could not remain quiet.
It is very, very interesting that in the vast, vast majority of cases, these were always white girls. The responses here clearly follow that pattern.
L liked that Dennis. I am very pro women but your comment did hit some past work place issues. Very true.
Thanks for the compliment!
Seems like the only women these anti Bruce folks like are Very Liberal Socialist. Like Warren {Former Republican}, Hillary {Worked on Nixon Campaign}, Very strange, maybe they are closet Republicans.
I finally figured it out. Anyone who is not in line with the right is a Socialist. I guess that means that a huge percentage of us are. Shall we rally? Say, at a local Starbucks (that guy gives benefits to his workers, part time or not)? Maybe we could meet in the Kaiser parking lot (it’s a non profit with a nice model for universal health care)? I don’t know; seems like all the Socialist, anti-fossil fuel folks in the US of A might even manage to fill an arena bigger than the one in Phoenix?
On the other hand, if you are in line with the right, apparently you should be wearing a top hat and a monocle and enjoying crumpets with your high tea.
If you are in line with left you would still be riding in a horse carrage and taxing everyone beyound belief for your own personal gain and desires. I think Bill and Hillary are very good examples Personal desires {Bill} and gains {Both} fits them to ModelT. Also would be putting folks in camps that maybe you consider a threat. Just think WWII. Japanese, Germans AND Italians. Real good folks those Democrats.
jfurlong stated:Maybe we could meet in the Kaiser parking lot (it’s a non profit with a nice model for universal health care)?
Interesting that you mention Kaiser Healthcare. I specifically recall during the run up to the passage of ObamaCare, Bob Livesay specifically suggesting that Kaiser Healthcare be used as the basis for establishing a healthcare system that would be more all encompassing.
You may have missed those several postings.
Yes I did Dennis. Staff model that works. Better do a little research on Henry J. He did everything the right way. Think Boulder DAM and healthcare. Even was a partner with Hughes for the flying boat. Remember the initial HK. Stood for Hughes Kaiser. You are out of touch J.
Yes, and the original idea for the ACA came from The Heritage Foundation, hardly a bastion of liberal thinkers. It was then adopted by Mitt Romney in MA, ditto. So, instead of wasting the country’s time with 50+ futile attempts to repeal the ACA, you’d think the Republicans would be taking credit for it! Why don’t they? Well, duh…
They will take credit for the new ACA. It will be much better and more choice and Health insurance Company’s, Hospitals, Doctors, business and even the Dems taking part. It will give help where help is needed. Look at the KAISER MEDICARE STaff MODEL. They take over your medicare and provide you with best healthcare possible. Medicare gives Kaiser the money based on zip code costs.. They partner with many fine hospitals such as Johns Hopkins and many others. They do know how to run a healthcare system. The big problem has always been with paid for Medicare by the employer/employee is the Dems get invioved and mess it up. Some things the Dems should be quite and move on. Healthcare is at the top of the list..
original idea for the ACA came from The Heritage Foundation,
This is very misleading and the Heritage Foundation refutes the accuracy of this story.
You are correct
Heritage versus Obamacare – Benicia Herald Nov 4, 2013
“Dr. Butler in a USA Today article in February of 2012, summed up the position of the Heritage Foundation:
Is the individual mandate at the heart of “ObamaCare” a conservative idea? Is it Constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation? In a word, no.
Actually you may well be right J. If I do not agree with your Socialist ideals what should I call you? A Progressive? Is that what Bernie and Warren are Socialist Progressives. I love being called a Conservative.
Dear Mr. Robinson,
You say you are “amused” by the reaction of people who rely on movie stars for their “sole source” of news…I agree!
Just for your information, Ferrera has a degree in international studies; so, most likely she can read.
I guess you were also amused by Ronald Reagan, George Murphy, Clint Eastwood, Fred Thompson, Jerry Springer and Sonny Bono.
Cheers to all the grand old men who want to go back to 1910!
Sincerely,
Jane Hara
Dear Jane
1910?
You must be a lot older than I.
Have a nice day, anyway.
Yep, and I love being old!