Anti-DEI lobbyists say they’re unfairly accused of racism and sexism for what, they claim, is unemotional factual science that they invoke to support the meritocracy and “preserve standards”. Like a 1970s Monty Python sketch, they invoke a common sense axiom, such as, “Surely, you want the best person for the job, not just anyone because they’re black or a woman”, an obvious concept most reasonable would agree with. But, unlike Monty Python, do those doing “PC gone mad” today really mean that “a person is unsuitable for a job because they’re “black” or a “woman”? When so “accused”, the anti-DEI campaigners demand “free speech” against what they call “woke, far-left censorship” and cry “Cancel culture!”, saying they’re afraid to publish “for fear of being called sexist or racist”. They’re very upset by the “accusations”, but their responses are more hurt feelings than convincing argument or are lengthy, but hollow, pseudo-intellectual diatribes that often merely raise more red flags. So, the question is, when anti-DEI advocates say that removing DEI programs is about “merit” and by “a” person of colour or woman is unsuitable for a job, do they really mean “no person of colour woman” is suitable because they’re black or a woman? Without accusing, I believe it to be a valid question and one that deserves a better answer than “I never said that”, “I’m being misquoted”, “I’m being taken out of context” or “People who think I said that are poo-poo-heads”. Qualification is especially necessary, as many comments by anti-DEI advocates are made in the context of both explicit and implicit accusation against others, whether in reference to competence, motives, effects or liabilities, sometimes with major effect on careers, livelihood and public perception.
First, there’s blame on “diversity-hires” for the fall of civilisation itself, without mention of nepo-hires, any rich man’s unqualified idiot son placed into positions of major responsibility. An incidental oversight, perhaps? No-one can say everything about a topic, all the time. But then, there’s a leader stating that certain academics claim they “fear” being called racist or sexist if they publish studies which, they claim, show that certain groups of people, innately, “underperform” relative to others. Clang!
Read further and find claims that racism and misogyny are “woke”, social constructs but race and sex are “real”, i.e. that certain physical racial and gender differences are of significance, including “disqualifying” physiological traits in specific contexts. In good faith, you read their articles, in full, and then realise you’ve just wasted a good two minutes on pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook, when you could have had more intellectual or scientific insight from an adventure game on the internet (or one of Isaac’s trashy David Starr Space Ranger novels, the ones he wrote under an alias to pay his way through uni! Not to be misunderstood, I’m an Asimov devotee. My point is that his rubbish was more intelligent than what these people churn out as what they call “great thinking”). Read a little further and find that when no reputable journal will publish their work, they cry “cancel culture”, as well as sulking that “People want their differences to be acknowledged and accommodated, then whinge when we acknowledge physical difference.” Such superficiality tends to tie itself in knots in slightly deeper waters, e.g. they say women should have the choice of not having to undress in front of a trans person and that anything less is abuse, but people are being “racist”, “sexist”, “absurd” or encouraging “dangerous DEI-hire” practices if they say they’d feel more “comfortable” being treated by a doctor of their own race or sex.
Of course, not all of the anti-DEI mob agree on their reasons or every aspect of race and gender differences. They’re not a single person and no individual should be “punished” for the actions of another. But there are those whose intentions take a somewhat more ominous tone than “PC gone mad” when pressed beyond superficialities. There are those who, while carefully avoiding any mention of it too obviously, even eventually get to the old chestnut of IQ, and no prizes for guessing where they head with that. Suffice to say that, despite their claims that there are studies purporting to show racial or gender differences, to my knowledge, there are no reputable studies that show significant differences in IQ between races or sexes. Even putting the usual flaws in the concepts underlying IQ tests aside, there are, however, more recent, credible, studies that show unexpected results, results that, in fact, point to “superior” performance of women and people of colour in certain contexts, e.g. at certain ages, and how much environmental factors, such as educational opportunities, socio-economic standing and exposure to social and cultural influences can affect performance throughout life stages.
Particularly concerning are claims of studies showing propensity of certain “groups of people” to violence, or particular forms of violence, and claims that “studies” show that racism and sexism are inventions of the “woke, far left” and are driving false public perception. Many of these claims are made in op-eds, without provision of primary raw data and. therefore, can be very persuasive to the uninitiated reader. However, closer inspection of these “studies” reveal flawed interpretation and sometimes dodgy sources. Wider knowledge and familiarity with more credible studies and raw data tends to reveal more sensible analysis, incorporating more or all relevant variables necessary for accurate interpretation, leading to very different conclusions from those stated. That, in certain cases, these interpreters have stated that by “more likely to” they mean are prone to “due to innate characteristics”, raises alarm bells for obvious reasons. Incredibly, among those propounding such views are those who don’t cite physiological studies, but incarceration figures, from which it is concluded that a certain group of people are more likely to commit a certain type of offence. Another, more broad-sweepingly, said that high incarceration figures of a particular group of people proved they were more “violent”, a ridiculously superficial interpretation with as much merit as comments made by average, MAGA internet trolls on X. However, all that drawing broad conclusions from limited data “proves”, is ignorance of how science works and relevant knowledge of a topic, in this case, for example, that such statistics are merely evidence that certain groups of people are more likely to be reported, convicted or incarcerated. Other scholars cite the same figures as evidence of prejudice against certain groups of people, which, taken with other information and experience, tends to be a more reliable interpretation. Importantly, sources such as incarceration figures are not “scientific” studies. These are sociological or legal matters from which conclusions are being deduced that are in no way “scientifically” based. Moreover, what has it to do with refusal to recognise native peoples’ rights or support for political parties that campaign against it, positions which several of the anti-DEI advocates vehemently take? What is the connection between supposedly “scientific” observation and political views?
In general, with few exceptions, op-eds barely constitute literature reviews of any recognisable standard, let alone genuine science. No scholar worth the letters after their name would rely on one study from which to generalise an opinion, let alone a “proof”, thereby contravening the basic principles of verifiability and falsifiability, principles at the core of science, principles which help define science and make it valuable. Worse, when people self-publish opinions on their own sites, outside of mainstream scientific journals, they’re circumventing the essential process of peer review. That, in itself, is not a crime against science and, these days, in some cases, it’s the only way for genuine information to reach the public domain. It is also true that censorship in relation to some topics is ominously, both overtly and clandestinely, inhibiting “free speech”. In such conditions, open discussion with public responses can, to some extent, provide semblance of ”peer review”. But, not all these sites allow comments or more “erudite” discussion that raises questions, notes flaws or attempts more in-depth examination and a small cabal of like-minded people self-confirming each others’ biases hardly constitutes valid invitation to criticism. Moreover, claiming to be “hiding” studies for “fear” of criticism does break the rules and, in the absence of further information, is just avoidance of scrutiny of unverified fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-garden silliness. Many of these opinionators are hardly Galileo, facing imprisonment by the Inquisition. In response to that justification for cowardly “secrecy”, I invoke one of the most important golden rules of science – “Put up or shut up.”
Such scholarship merely reflects the general issue with science reporting in the media, when people with little knowledge of how scientific analysis works, frame headlines like “Study proves starvation cures cancer!” gleaned from a study that shows that mice on low-calorie diets tend to have less bowel cancer than mice that eat lots of barbecued meat, with such reportage, incidentally, sitting alongside news of government departments cutting free meals to school children. I make no accusation of such ulterior motives in the anti-DEI mob. I merely point out that the right to bear the stamp of “scientifically proven” depends on more than just “opinion” or framing of secondary sources to suit it.
Of course, not all opinions or interpretations of studies are faulty and there is scientific evidence for some physiological claims. Of course, there are studies that show that some men are innately physically stronger than some women, an obvious point I concede without hesitation. Certain “analysts”, however, are not so objective when, for example, invoking stats that show that women tend to live longer than men. That is true and in many societies. But in that instance, certain “analysts” are the first to point out that that’s more than likely due to environmental factors and not innate, “superior, longevity genes”, factors they go to great pains to detail. According to them, it’s because women, apparently, are masters at “enslaving” men into doing more physical labour and for longer hours than they etc. etc. To my knowledge, there are no reputable studies that show significant differences in “performance” between races and sexes in relation to any trait of innate “worth” or “worth” to “civilised society”, as these people often frame it. Nor do I know of reputable primary studies that prove certain characteristics, such as propensity to violence or particular types of violence in certain groups of people specified to be “innate”.
Importantly, superficial physiological traits are not preclusive to job suitability. The workplace has accommodated the physiology of men for millennia. If women had been there first, the arguments would be the other way around. Minor physiological differences, like accommodating menstruation, were solved easily when the first barrier of just being “allowed” into certain positions was lifted. World War II, when women had to do the jobs at home while men were away on the battlefield, dispensed with most of the objections to women being able to do certain work, it having been proved by necessity that women could do just about anything men could. Even Queen Elizabeth was a mechanic and drove a truck. She was also the Head of State and reigning monarch, living negation of any objections to women being in positions of power. Attempts to put the genie back in the bottle when the men came home merely resulted in the big break-out during the sixties and since then, the “issues” thrown out as the major “gotcha” hurdles, i.e. pregnancy, parenting and child-care, are now also gradually being accommodated, with nothing less than a quiet cultural revolution.
In many fields, technological or other solutions have dispensed with such puerile inanities as “Would you want a women rescuing you in a fire or a big, strong man who can carry you down a flight of stairs?” Like modern firefighters even do that these days or there’s no such thing as muscly women. It’s like saying women can’t drive big rigs, when there are a lot of lady truckers who have proven themselves more than capable of doing so and women train drivers who know how to push buttons in computerised cabs. As many trains now are fully automated, run from computer centres thousands of kilometres away, the point is now moot. “Give me a lever and I will move the world”, said Archimedes. Tools have rendered most arguments about physiological suitability for many positions obsolete, for all people. Discussions as to how the ability for human beings to manipulate the environment impacts on survival, potentially making physical natural selection irrelevant, are of far more scientific interest. The more applicable issue now is artificial selection and how that may impact on the future of our species, including its survival, And that makes the issue of social, cultural and economic manipulation via DEI purges and the culling of DEI programs of significance to everyone. (And, actually, I would feel safer being carried out of a burning building by a big burly Pacific Islander man or woman, than a puny, white male desk jockey. 🙂 )
Unfortunately, inertia, resistance and the backlash to MeToo, BLM and DEI is still restricting women to a pyramid workplace model – lots of women in the typing pool but nearly all under a male supervisor, and people of colour to token representative roles in select positions. So, yes, as the anti-“feminists” shout, workplace participation rates for women are up. But, presence in managerial positions is still very low. The critics of “feminism” point out the large number of women on the boards of Fortune 500 companies but neglect to mention that only 10% are CEOs. Those who claim racism is a “woke” delusion, point to Clarence Thomas serving on the SCOTUS, a reference so facile I squirm at the idea it’s even made. It does also have to be asked if the fierce warriors against DEI, claiming to be “great thinkers” and quoting facts and figures by the shovel-load, really don’t know how social, cultural and economic factors impede success. Do they really not know the impact of exclusion? The effect of formal policies and unofficial practices that prevent people from gaining the necessary skills and experience that would make them the best person for a job? Are they really that ignorant of how a fine mesh of fibres, from daily encounters to evasive, “official” excuse, entraps people into stagnant class immobility within an illusion of success, or into poverty, relative or otherwise? Let’s not kid ourselves that all of these supposed utopians are naïve, cushioned, ivory tower “idealists”, who merely have little experience or knowledge of “the real world”.
Some of the anti-DEI mob magnanimously concede that inequity exists in the world, but claim the whole of civilisation shouldn’t be brought down by the faults in society acting against equal opportunity in “earlier” years, before people get to lofty places like universities. There, they say, the highest standards must be maintained and, therefore, no “lesser” person should be admitted. However, that they actively oppose equity programs designed to bring people up to required levels of admission, miss the point that all graduates are still required to meet all course requirements before being conferred a degree and overlook legacy inductions, raises valid questions as to their true understanding of the real world and what equity and equality are about. That they apply the same “magnanimousness” to kindergarten and offer no solutions as to how the inequalities in “earlier years” and society as a whole can be addressed, makes their observations irrelevant to the discourse.
After women and people of colour, the current targets of the anti-DEI mob’s most vocal virtue-signalling and soap-boxing are “Muslims” and recognition of native peoples.
Personally, I’m happy to be treated by any doctor qualified for the job, regardless of sex, race or anything else. In Australia, we’re very lucky. We’re a diverse nation with national standards and few barriers to the workplace and I can feel confident that whomever I see is suitable, regardless of any irrelevant superficialities. Likewise, in any workplace situation. Suffice to say, I don’t run out of a building screaming “The Muslims are coming!” when served by a man of colour (even the Sikh, Buddhist or Hindu “Muslims”) or a woman in a hijab. And, in fact, the only “issues” I’ve experienced in any setting, professional or otherwise, have usually been due to privileged “white” people. The most helpful person I’ve encountered in a supermarket recently was a young woman in a hijab, who patiently came to my rescue when I got into an argument with a self-serve checkout, and, fortunately, her understanding of how supermarkets work these days far superseded mine!
I didn’t think “The blacks are taking over!” during the Voice referendum, nor do I think “they” want to slaughter me in my bed in revenge for the sins of the colonial fathers. All that’s being asked for is recognition of past wrongs and some kind of reparation to address the inequities that have resulted from those past wrongs, so that people still living the effects of them know justice and have opportunities made available to them that, by law and all that’s moral, they should never have been denied, even if that means forced quotas, affirmative action, but its former title. In a wealthy country, it’s not a race for limited spaces. It’s a matter of making more spaces available to accommodate everyone. No-one’s taking from someone else. Unless, of course, funding’s reduced by people who do want to make it about competition for limited spaces and competition based on criteria determined by those reducing the funding. Countering that sub rosa means of enacting fascism is just one purpose of DEI and why, regardless of innocence or ulterior motives behind it, any attempt at Musk/Trumpian DEI purges and DOGE-style cuts in Australia must be countered at every step. Yes, there are occasional absurdities, when PC really does go mad, but what could be more absurd than Donald Trump as President of the United States or the totally unqualified RFK jr as Secretary of Health, people who most certainly are in their positions because they are entitled, privileged, white males. The real absurdity is claims that women and people of colour are now “more equal” than privileged, white men.
So, my answer to those saying “Don’t you want the best person for the job?” is “Absolutely! Being why I don’t want any unqualified idiot in a position merely because they’re white male, which the removal of DEI programs almost certainly ensures.” The world is certainly not in a safer or more “intelligent” place with the cabal of privileged white males now leading it and leading the removal of able, qualified people because they happen to be women or people of colour.
Trumpism is something we do not want reflected in Australia, in any form, and one of the most essential ground-level defences from that is maintaining our egalitarian diversity through equity in a more sophisticated social and economic model than that offered by fascism by stealth, which, regardless of the best of intentions in certain people, removal of DEI policies abets.