This article first appeared on Merion West under the title “On the ‘Diversity Paradox’.”
Nowadays, it’s common to hear that more diversity is better or that diversity is strength or that diversity results in better outcomes along any number of dimensions. You may also have noticed, however, that this doesn’t always seem to be the case. While you might hear that there is a problem, for example, in surgery because there is a higher proportion (over-representation) of male surgeons than there are males in the population, you don’t hear the same thing about professions such as public health that tend to be dominated by women. Similarly, while hockey is considered to have an under-representation problem, the same is not true for the NFL or NBA in which African Americans are very over-represented. I call this the Diversity Paradox: in some cases a lack of diversity is considered to be bad requiring remediation, while in other cases a lack of diversity is considered to be fine. How can this be?
The answer boils down to the Critical Social Justice (or Woke) perspective and two of its core tenets. The first tenet is oppression and the second is equity. With respect to oppression, and as I describe in my book Counter Wokecraft with James Lindsay, according to the CSJ perspective, people are ascribed to, and primarily defined by, their group identity. People’s identities are seen as comprising multiple overlapping dimensions relating to skin color, sex, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Importantly, each of these identities is also qualified as being either oppressed or privileged, as are the intersections of these identities. As a result, women are considered to be (historically) oppressed, as are blacks. Black women are seen to suffer from oppression on account of being black and on account of being women, but also and in addition on account of being black women. White men on the other hand are seen as being privileged and (historically) oppressors. Someone’s status as oppressor or oppressed accrues to them by way of their identity. This implies not only that they are recipients of contemporary oppression or privilege, but also of historical oppression and privilege. Moreover, the privileged are not only recipients of privilege but are responsible for the implied oppression that such privilege represents - not only currently, but historically for oppression imposed by members of their same identity groups in the past.
The second tenet is also the goal of the entire CSJ political project, equity. Equity is the retributive redistribution of resources from oppressor (privileged) to oppressed identities. The idea is that any under-representation of an oppressed identity group in any context compared to a reference population is considered to be an indication of discrimination or indeed, oppression. That is, for example, if less than 50.5% of the of employees at an establishment are not women (their proportion in the US),(their proportion in the US), then this is an indication of female discrimination. The way to obtain equity is therefore to ensure the appropriate representation of each and every identity group, as well as their intersections. Importantly, the appropriate representation is not the representation in a target population, but rather above their representation in the population. It is for this reason that equity policies increasingly seek to “exceed” or “go beyond” reference population targets. The reason for this is to “redress” historical oppression.
Of course, it is not possible to over-represent some groups while not under-representing others; an over-representation of women necessarily implies an under-representation of men. Because men are seen to be (historical) oppressors it is considered justifiable that they be forced to be under-represented now. It is for this reason that equity is also retributive.
This brings us to the bottom line of the Diversity Paradox and how the paradox is resolved according to the CSJ perspective. It is acceptable to have a lack of diversity if the lack of diversity is caused by an over-representation of a (historically) oppressed identity. If a lack of diversity is caused, on the other hand, by an over-representation of a privileged or oppressor group it is not acceptable, and must be redressed.
Naturally, this is completely contradictory and antithetical to common sense, fairness and notions of equal treatment. Understanding how to understand, unpack and deconstruct such caustic ideas, however, is the first step in being able to reject and combat them.
Photo by Scott Webb: https://www.pexels.com/photo/assorted-color-candies-136745/
Thanks Charles. Retribution pretty much sums it up but even that word is too academic to allow people to see what is really going on: revenge. The problem is this revenge is being enacted on innocent parties and, as you point out, only ends up creating the same unfairness they seek to redress. At best it will create a vicious circle; at worst it will simply blow up in their faces as those now being discriminated against, who are greater in number, decide to "stop being polite" as Douglas Murray puts it.
❝. . . the entire establishment in the Western world is attacking Russia in unison. The propaganda machine is in full swing in an effort to make the whole world hate Putin and take Ukraine’s side in the war. The same propaganda machine that wants nothing more than you as a White person to stop having children and instead focus on your career, race-mix or become homosexual. What this establishment wants you to think is often a very good indicator of what you should absolutely not think, and by this measure, Russia appears to be the side to support 100%.
From a global geopolitical perspective, if we theorize from the unlikely idea that this conflict will lead to a third world war, then all pro-Zionist liberal monster-nations like Great Britain, France, Germany, the United States and, of course, Israel itself would side with Ukraine, while more traditional and sovereign anti-Zionist forces would likely stand behind Russia. Mark my words when I say that the Nordic Resistance Movement will NEVER stand on the same side as Israel or the Zionist entity that the USA represents today – whatever the issue or conflict may be!
If we look at the situation from a revolutionary point of view, it is also natural to support Russia. By challenging the USA and the Western world, one acts against the status quo – the present situation that must be destroyed in order for any true changes to take place, and for us National Socialists to be able to make real progress. The more the current ruling powers are challenged, and the harder the world economy is combated, the greater the chance for widespread disruption, which is a necessity for the Nordic revolution to become fact. Please note that I do not mean the coming changes will necessarily be better for us; however, in the dramatic situation in which we find ourselves, we must see hope in every potential radical change that arises within the global environment.❞
https://nordicresistancemovement.org/which-side-are-we-on-in-the-ukraine-war/