Diversity Debate, Features, Long Read, Politics

Diversity: A Managerial Ideology

Diversity is the reigning social and political ideal of our age. It is the public ideology of the country’s most powerful state and business institutions. To many it is the essence of American national identity and, in one of the favorite phrases of President Barack Obama, ‘who we are’ as a country.

Rather than simply a recognition of difference, diversity is a cultural, economic, and political project to both generate difference and to manage it. This project traces its ancestry back to the black civil rights and women’s movements of the 1950s-70s. First blacks and then women organized and pressured state and society with demands for equality. Struggles took place in nearly every social arena, from housing to public accommodations to religion to sport. Conflict was especially pointed in employment and education, the country’s key channels for upward social mobility. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 stands as the signature legal culmination of those demands, and its Titles IV and VII set forth society’s new norms on ‘equal opportunity’ in both arenas. By ensuring equal access to university admissions, job training, the professions, and corporate management positions, supporters hoped that over time equal outcomes would result, the power of prejudiced white men would be curtailed, and the skills of blacks and women would expand. Not only would underprivileged individuals benefit. So, too, would the country as a whole.

While the social intent of the Civil Rights Act was clear, the legal definition of this new equality norm was not. What would the government consider evidence of discrimination? How much activity counted as a good faith effort toward equal opportunity? Was it possible to pursue too much equality? America’s largest, most dynamic, and most profitable firms in aerospace, computers, communications, and heavy manufacturing – as well as its largest and most prestigious universities – blazed the trail which all others, even the state itself, followed. Elite institutions in business and education eventually defined nondiscrimination and equal opportunity as ‘affirmative action.’ Concretely this meant an expanding set of bureaucratic ‘best practices’ including written nondiscrimination policies, targeted recruitment, targeted financial aid, special managerial training programs, formal grievance and disciplinary procedures, an end to job tests, and performance evaluations. It also created hundreds of thousands of managerial best practitioners. From the early 1970s to the dawn of diversity in the late 1980s, the number of large US firms with a personnel office nearly doubled. The number with an equal opportunity office quadrupled. Those with an affirmative action officer grew five-fold.1

While the rapid spread of affirmative action policies met a backlash in the late 1970s, this resistance was largely a white middle class revolt. Support never flagged among elites. In fact, most of the country’s largest corporations opposed the Reagan administration’s efforts to dismantle affirmative action practices in the early 1980s. Despite regulatory relief, nearly all Fortune 500 firms continued to pursue or even expand efforts to recruit and employ more racial minorities and women.2 Elite universities remained strongly committed as well, demonstrating their resolve most clearly in the famous reverse discrimination Bakke Supreme Court case.

In 1974 California resident Allan Bakke brought suit against the University of California, Davis for twice rejecting his application to its medical school. Despite his having test scores well above average for the school’s applicant pool in addition to four years service in the Marine Corps and a seven month tour in Vietnam, UC-Davis refused Bakke admission. The School of Medicine justified this in part because of his age – such discrimination being perfectly legal at the time – and in part because of the manner in which he blamed his first rejection on the School’s affirmative action policy. Beginning shortly after its founding in 1968, the Davis medical school operated a quota system for racial minorities in which around 15 percent of its admission slots were reserved for non-white students. Although Congress believed its Civil Rights Act banned quotas in employment and the Department of Labor under President Nixon clearly forbade them, colleges and universities had been using various types of admissions quotas for decades and were committed to continuing them.

In 1978, four years after Bakke’s original suit, the Supreme Court issued its famously scattered ruling. The nine justices issued six separate opinions, none gathering a majority. Justice Lewis Powell’s idiosyncratic opinion, however, garnered enough partial support in places that it stood as the judgment of the Court. In a victory for affirmative action opponents, it ordered Bakke to be admitted to the Davis School of Medicine and barred the use of racial quotas. Yet in a victory for affirmative action supporters, the Court also agreed that some alternative system of racial preferences could pass constitutional muster. It is precisely here that the ideology of diversity entered mainstream American thought and practice.

Justice Powell argued that “a diverse student body” was a worthy goal of any university which allowed the consideration of race in admissions. He justified this neither on the grounds of racial justice nor the amelioration of past or present discrimination, but on the grounds of diversity. Powell claimed that racial and ethnic diversity advanced the core intellectual mission of American higher education, namely “speculation, experiment and creation,” “the interplay of ideas and the exchange of views,” and an encounter of differing “ideas and mores of students as diverse as this Nation of many peoples.” This claim hardly originated with Powell, of course.  He was simply repeating the collective views of Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, and the University of Pennsylvania as stated in their joint brief to the Court in defense of affirmative action. According to the country’s most elite private universities, diversity in all its forms – race, region, social class, field of interest, occupational life plan (although not sex, as Harvard College was male-only until 1977 as was Columbia College until 1983) – is a precondition for the best educational experience possible.

Powell’s endorsement of the so-called ‘Harvard plan’ as a constitutionally permissible and even preferable equal opportunity practice spread diversity throughout American higher education and the elite business sector. Equal opportunity officers and consultants morphed into diversity officers and consultants. New diversity categories expanded older affirmative action mission statements. Diversity training replaced race relations workshops. Culture audits burst onto the scene. By the early 1990s, diversity had conquered Corporate America.3

The country’s managerial elite now rarely misses an opportunity to demonstrate commitment to diversity. In California (1996), Houston (1997), Washington state (1998), and Michigan (2006), policies barring consideration of race, ethnicity, and sex in the public sector went to referendum. In each case, the largest corporations in the area – Exxon, Enron, Boeing, Microsoft, General Motors, Ford – were among the strongest opponents. In 2003, the United States Supreme Court revisited its Bakke decision in the case Grutter v. Bollinger. General Motors and a collective of sixty-five Fortune 500 firms filed separate passionate and influential defenses of diversity before the Court.4 Race/ethnicity-based university admissions policies appeared yet again before the Court in Fisher v. University of Texas. In 2012 and again in 2015, 45 Fortune 100 firms argued that diversity is essential both for individual “success in the corporate world” as well as “business success” in “country and world economies that are increasingly diverse.” Diversity in higher education management is today so hegemonic that it stands as an orthodoxy against which only the most foolhardy or cantankerous now speak.5

Business would have us believe its embrace of diversity is a straightforward matter of efficiency, productivity, and profitability. In their 2015 Obergefell brief, the “379 Employers and Organizations” supporting a constitutional right to same-sex marriage pointed to “rigorous analyses” which demonstrate “the business value of investments in diversity” including “significant returns for our shareholders and owners.” A 2013 survey of four hundred executives conducted by the consulting and recruitment firm Korn/Ferry found that a stunning 96 percent believed “having a diverse and inclusive workforce can lead to higher employee engagement and improved business results.”6 The business case for diversity couldn’t have been stated more clearly than in the Fortune 100 firms’ brief to the Supreme Court in the Fisher case. For these largest globe-spanning firms “to succeed in their businesses,” American higher education must develop “university-trained employees [who] have had the opportunity to share ideas, experiences, viewpoints, and approaches with a broadly diverse student body. … this is a business and economic imperative.”7

But is there really a business case for diversity? While most corporations claim to be true believers, social science gives a decidedly mixed answer.8  That being said, the academic debate over diversity’s impact on the bottom line is largely, well, academic. Managers embraced diversity long before any meaningful evidence existed for its positive effects. The first systematic academic study of whether diversity policies even produce diversity, much less profitability, wasn’t published until 2006.9 Business and educational elites certainly aren’t waiting around for academics to tell them what to do now. Higher education managers are in a similar position. Universities claim the case for diversity is an educational one, an argument their most elite representatives pioneered decades ago. Yet academic debate continues, particularly over the degree to which diversity improves student cognitive skills and tendencies.10 Whether diversity admissions practices even help their targets remains a matter of controversy.11 Despite all this uncertainty, higher education displayed total unity of purpose in the Fisher case. Briefs supporting the University of Texas were filed by seventy-five universities and colleges as well as by the American Association of College Registrars and Admissions Officers, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the Association of American Law Schools. Not one college, university, or educational organization filed in support of Abigail Fisher.

Plenty of cynical arguments exist to explain managerial enthusiasm for diversity. Critical race theorists in particular claim diversity is little more than propaganda designed to sideline discussions of racial justice and to legitimate the power of managers.12 No doubt an element of self-interest is behind the promotion of any ideology. Managerial elites supported affirmative action in the 1960s and 1970s in part out of a fear of black riots, and thus creating a black managerial elite was thought to counter the frustration which supposedly motivated urban unrest.13 As personnel initiatives, both affirmative action and diversity created managerial employment opportunities for women in particular. Evidence suggests white women have in fact benefited more than any other group from corporate diversity initiatives.14

Such arguments have notable problems, however. They fail to grapple with clear evidence that many managers show genuine enthusiasm for diversity. They ignore the contentious social and political debate over the merits of diversity and thus the contradictory, even ironic, effects of the ideology on elite legitimacy. Most importantly, they overlook diversity’s deeper class aspects. As an ideology and associated set of practices, diversity is attractive to managers and administrators because it is a particular version of the broader ideology of managerialism.

Unlike capitalism or socialism, managerialism is not a household word. Yet it should be thought of alongside these more famous -isms. Capitalism places the business entrepreneur at the center of society and emphasizes her role in social development. Socialism elevates the worker to this status and places labor at the foundation of society. Managerialism, too, is a coherent and complex account of society with a program for creating social order. Not surprisingly, it places the manager at the center of that order and assigns her the key role in producing it.15

Managerialism sees society as a collection of organizations. Those organizations are themselves made up of smaller organized groups down to the basic group units of society. Not only does each group require internal management to realize its goals; the entire society does as well. Any positive order reached spontaneously through the interactions of individuals and groups is either impossible or inefficient. Positive order must be intentionally produced through expert managerial technique. In fact, this is the way all organizational goods are realized. In a managerial society all enjoy the fruits of greater efficiency, creativity, and productivity as society’s opportunities for advancement are more effectively distributed. No human capital will go to waste.

Managerialism’s ideal is a society in which every individual has an equal chance to develop and realize his merit and be rewarded by society for it. This is a process of individual transformation and empowerment. Networking and mentoring programs build personal skills toward increasing personal value, self-affirmation, and self-realization. Diversity training is a transformative educational experience which both explores the self and creates cultural competencies. Even white men can gain marketable interpersonal skills and realize multicultural character ideals through diversity.

Thus managerial elites, whether in the private or public sector, have embraced diversity because it is a managerial ideology. Within diversity, difference is not simply a social fact of American society. It is its deepest truth. This makes difference an inescapable problem. Because of the lines of race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, and the like, diverse groups of different individuals have problems interacting in peaceful and productive ways. Bigotry and prejudice compound the negative effect. Yet difference offers a shining promise as well. If differences are reconciled, new pinnacles of co-operation, creativity, productivity, and social harmony can be achieved. Since this process is neither natural nor automatic, skilled managers are essential for the good society to be realized. Bureaucracy becomes the pathway to progress.


Darel E. Paul is Professor of Political Science at Williams College. His latest book is From Tolerance to Equality: How Elites Brought America to Same-Sex Marriage (Baylor University Press) forthcoming February 2018. You can follow Darel on Twitter @darelmass 



1 Frank Dobbin, Inventing Equal Opportunity (Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press, 2009), 87.
2 Dobbin, Inventing Equal Opportunity, 138.
3 Dobbin, Inventing Equal Opportunity, 133-160.
4 Daniel N. Lipson, “Where’s the Justice? Affirmative Action’s Severed Civil Rights Roots in the Age of Diversity,” Perspectives on Politics 6 (2008), 691-706.
5 Daniel N. Lipson, “Embracing Diversity: The Institutionalization of Affirmative Action as Diversity Management at UC-Berkeley, UT-Austin, and UW-Madison,” Law & Social Inquiry 32 (2007), 985-1026.
6Executive Attitudes on Diversity Positive, but Actions Lagging, Korn/Ferry Institute Survey Finds,” Korn Ferry, November 2, 2013.
7 “Brief of Fortune-100 and other leading American businesses as amici curiae in support of respondents,” Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 14-981 (2015).
8 George Gotsis and Zoe Kortezi, “Workplace Diversity: A Resource or a Source of Conflict?”, in Gotsis and Kortezi, Critical Studies in Diversity Management Literature: A Review and Synthesis (Dordrecht:  Springer, 2015), 1-12; James Damore, “The Case for Diversity,” Quillette, February 12, 2018.
9 Alexandra Kalev et al., “Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies,” American Sociological Review 71 (2006), 589-617.
10 Nicholas A. Bowman, “College Diversity Experiences and Cognitive Development: A Meta-Analysis,” Review of Educational Research 80 (2010), 4-33.
11 Peter Arcidiacono and Michael Lovenheim, “Affirmative Action and the Quality-Fit Trade-Off,” Journal of Economic Literature 54 (2016), 3-51.
12 Ellen Berrey, The Enigma of Diversity: The Language of Race and the Limits of Racial Justice (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2015).
13 Dobbin, Inventing Equal Opportunity, 50-51.
14 Kalev et al., “Best Practices”.
15 Harold Perkin, The Rise of Professional Society: England Since 1880 (London: Routledge, 1989); Christopher Pollitt, Managerialism and the Public Services: The Anglo-American Experience (Cambridge, MA:  Basil Blackwell, 1990); Willard F. Enteman, Managerialism: The Emergence of a New Ideology (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993).

Filed under: Diversity Debate, Features, Long Read, Politics


Darel E. Paul is Professor of Political Science at Williams College. His latest book is From Tolerance to Equality: How Elites Brought America to Same-Sex Marriage (Baylor University Press) forthcoming February 2018.


  1. Sapere Aude! says

    Something this excellent piece hints at is how the ideology of diversity is in fact a barely-veiled manifestation (conscious or otherwise) of the old principle “divide et impera”.

    As the author note, nanufactured divisions offer managers, administrators, and their acolytes (as well as elites more generally) the opportunity to expand the scope of their power. More division requires more people to manage the division. But aside from that, playing people and groups off against each other is a great way to stop them from uniting in their own interests.

    • That seems likely to me. Plenty of these policies so obviously create division and tribalism that it’s hard to believe they don’t know that.
      But the question remains why the CEOs and actual business interests at these corporations would want this stuff getting in the way of meritocracy.

  2. If the last paragraph can be taken as an accurate summary the author’s position then the caption should be Paul’s epistle to the apparatchiks in HR.

    • Caroline Charlese Scott says

      I share your concern. Is the last paragraph, especially the last three sentences, written and presented simply as the author’s concluding description of managerial enforced diversity or as the author’s summary opinion of and belief in diversity’s redeeming value. A clarification of meaning and intent is definitely required!!

    • K J Aldous says

      I read it as a summary of managerialistic belief. Such articles as are recited to support any faith-based system of belief.

    • Jeff says

      Indeed. The article was moving forward nicely but then the last part completely failed to tie anything up other than declare a conclusion by fiat without argumentation or logic.

      The one thing I’ve seen personally is there are still other factors/groups that are often at play and create harmony among different groups in the ways diversity often tries. These achieve the needs of organizations and culture but do not involve diversity at all.

      These are typically not seen in American but they are often dominant in other cultures. One example is the collection of imperatives of Confucian cultures with respect for elders and education (which impart both rights and obligations upon individuals involved).

      Diversity is definitely NOT part of that at all; the reliance on common expectation is quite central and probably far more efficient that diversity under managerialism can ever be or hope for. Only small dilutions of diversity work and support this.

      This has as much impact on how Asian business organizations and societies interact and work together as what’s implied about managerial ideology power and strength.

      Social/cultural rights/obligations are parts of US culture but not always majority parts. But you can see political conservatives exhibiting a lot more right plus obligation than most of the US. Leaving that out is a problem and may be part of the weakness that prevented a real argument or conclusion.

      Managerial procedure manuals and rules have NEVER saved or protected any corporation in history from human nature or the organization’s own demons. That’s the weakness. I’ve seen too many great companies from the inside fail when they fell back purely on managerialism. It IS an unsubstantiated, unproven and insufficient ideology – it’s often a part of the solution but it’s not the “one” answer.

      You need management but also you especially need leadership – people follow leaders either good or bad and set the tone for the entire organization far more strongly than any procedure manual ever does. You also need rights AND obligations among/for workers so that exceptions are clear for everyone: workers, management and leadership.

      No one ideology can do all those things! But ideologies are about rules that are so simple you don’t need to think – the the goal and purpose of managerialism. That’s the problem: the real world is not sufficiently simple to be accurately predicted by specific ideologies.

  3. Hans Siegel says

    Not sure how productivity on manufacturing lines can be maintained if certain religious/cultural groups require time off for prayers during work. Eg.muslim poultry workers. This is where diversity and multiculturalism may be at odds with a firms’ profitability.

  4. Pingback: Diversity is not a substitute for justice | Phil Ebersole's Blog

  5. Debbie says

    What about studying whether diversity actually makes a business better at what it does? The link in footnote 9 (well obscured behind a paywall) is a study about whether diversity programs actually achieve greater diversity. It’s a little shocking that they may not be very good even at that, but diversity for the sake of diversity is a social goal (i.e., employing more women and minorities) than it is a business goal (making better things and earning more profit). Does diversity make a business better at whatever that business does, aside from hiring more women and minorities?

  6. If we divide ideologies between the ones centered around “individual responsibility” and the ones centered around “social responsibility”, diversity is just a variation of the latter, which ultimately is the Marxist theory that divides society in classes, or the Nazi that does it by races. It is not about peace among employees. It is about paying ransom to the lefty ideology that took over the culture, the bureaucracy and academia.

  7. Diversity is a description of the state of society. As an ideology it is nothing more than a quota system to replace merit. It is most harmful to talented members of “unprivileged” minorities as it casts a shadow on their achievements as due to lower demands rather than excellence.

  8. StevenAz says

    This overplayed “White men are holding us minorities back, because of racism and such” song is old and we’re changing stations. We would rather listen to Barry Manilla than that.

    The Race Card is overlimit and no more credit will be extended. ‘Diversity’ is just dog whistle for “screw whitey”.

    • if you understood american history then you’d know screw non-whitey movement has been in effect since the country began.

  9. R Ami says

    It’s ok if Diversity is natural consequence of changing demographics, but what this article seems to support is imposed diversity as social engineering without factoring individual merits. So if in a test for becoming a pilot given to 20 people where only 10 will be selected, the best 10 are the ones who should get it, regardless if they are “diverse” or not.

    Like any other liberal social experimentation it means the decision of a few being imposed on a
    large group of individuals without their consent.

    Finally if Diversity is meant in the strict meaning of racial, gender, origin distinctions, there is no historical fact to support that the experimentation will work. However wthat there is is plenty historical data of countries, nations and societies developing successfully well (think US, Canada, Sweden , Germany, UK, Japan, etc) where homogeneity has been more the norm, save for intellectual diversity.

    • this country has NEVER been a meritocracy…never. And the US has never been a homogenous country…in fact it was the diversity of the native americans, african slaves, chinese and mexican workers who help build this country.

      • Nowhere on earth has ever been a pure meritocracy. But this isn’t a binary proposition. The question is whether you want something to be 80% about merit or 50% about merit.
        I’d prefer 80

        • the problem is you prefer it 80% meritocracy NOW that you feel or think you’re in the hot seat. For the vast majority of the history of this country the advantage has been for whites and white males in particular. The underlying true issue here isn’t about diversity or meritocracy its about advantage, power and leverage and white males believe thats slipping away.

          • Michiel van Haren says

            Sure but even recognising that fact, there were of course plenty of white men in the the history of the US who led absolutely abysmal lives, were oppressed, poor, hungry etc etc. And probably plenty of white women who had better lives than a lot of white men (who had to do all the dangerous work, and were predominantly the victims of violence by other men).
            And then virtually every single person born after a certain time, regardless of race or gender, has been infinitely better off than the average white male of a century ago.
            That is what everybody who makes these sweeping generlisations about “white males” seems to forget. Probably 90% of “white males” in the history of the western world never had any power, advantage or leverage whatsoever compared to the people who were actually pulling the strings.

      • Native Americans didn’t ‘help build this country’. They were an impediment. They were basically stone age people. And contrary to what you learned from elementary school dioramas, they were not peace-loving innocents. The Natives who encountered the Pilgrims first instinct was to kill them – mass murder over a hundred people, half of them women or children. They decided not to because they wanted them as allies in their wars with neighboring tribes. This was standard among virtually all tribes – a desire to destroy their ‘fellow Natives’. Rape as a weapon of war and infanticide were standard practices among Natives. African slaves helped build the country, but they weren’t essential. They were cheaper labor. Without slaves the rich would have gotten richer off low-paid workers instead. (And it’s astounding how many academics and their journalist parrots say things like ‘the first slaves in the Americas were…’ and state some group enslaved by whites, when there was slavery in the Americas since long before whites arrived. The Incas and Aztecs and most North American tribes used slaves). As for ‘Chinese and Mexican workers’ = never more than a few percent of the workforce until recently, and never essential. Once again, just a source of marginally cheaper labor. Another astounding thing is the way liberals and Democrats say that income inequality is bad and that a minimum wage and high worker pay is good, yet constantly claim that the contributions of people who did nothing but supply dirt-cheap labor was vital.

        Some may be shocked to hear that the Natives of North America were not saintly innocents living in a veritable Garden of Eden, so I’ll offer a partial bibliography. Go read actual history instead of liberal polemics. Cod: A Biography of the Fish that Changed the World; Mayflower, A Story of Courage, Community, and War; Son of the Morning Star; Empire of the Summer Moon.

        • There’s no apparent edit function. When I say ‘infanticide’ I mean it was standard practice to kill the babies of defeated tribes and those captured in raids. They were a burden. Women and girls could be raped and used as slaves. Men were killed, boys spared because they could be raised as members of their new tribe.

  10. Steve says

    “Bureaucracy becomes the pathway to progress.” Of course! Just look at the DMV, the Post Office, your local school district for inspiration.

  11. Major Bob says

    Diversity is a major tenet of the liberal progressive religion. It does not enhance quality, productivity, creativity, profitability, etc

    • jason kennedy says

      Yes, utterly bizarre conclusion, did some wag wandering by tap it in and then hit the send button?

  12. ForestCat says

    “Diversity is the reigning social and political ideal of our age. It is the public ideology of the country’s most powerful state and business institutions.”

    Really? And here I was under the impression that “Diversity” was the current ideology of the modern twit. An observation only reinforced by the contents of this article.

  13. Nathan says

    Insightful and provocative. This managerial class must go on producing the differences and divisions that justify its own existence and power. The managerial class is the “cure” for the very problems it produces.

    In corporations and universities this class is so overgrown and so rapidly growing even larger that there is no counter-power to balance it. Every minor action or decision must be scrutinized and managed and legitimated from above–either directly or through strict oversight and proceduralization. Even executives are subordinate to the managerial power that controls final judgments about 3rd rails like race and gender and sexuality–and whatever new groups and identities the managerial class needs to maintain and expand its domination.

    This resembles nothing so much as a virus that attacks institutions and organizations: simple but very effective at reproducing itself and reorganizing and commandeering its host. And there is no vaccine or treatment.

    I do disagree, however, with the rejection of the idea that universities and some other organizations are partly vulnerable to this virus because of the historic violence and mistreatment and injustice faced by some groups. If there had not been slavery, I doubt that managerial imperialism could have taken this form.

  14. 14 words says

    And when the push for ever-expanding diversity is twinned with ever more open borders, what is the endgame? Rhetorical. White genocide.

    • John gill says

      Add to those factors the vilification of “whiteness” (I.e., white people) in the academy and the media and you have all the ingredients for a race war and yes, quite possibly for genocide.

  15. Jon E Pizza says

    It concerns me greatly that you think ‘elite’ institutions opinions are valuable just on the basis of them being elite institutions, and not due to the backing of any actual data for their opinions. That managers keep moving in spite of a lack of objective support for their claims, and the disagreement of many, should only frighten you for the totalitarianism it represents.

  16. Pingback: Skepticlawyer » A misconceived attack on libertarianism

  17. jason kennedy says

    Good article. To an extent, recapitulates arguments of Walter Benn Michaels, writing here in 2009.

    “American universities are exemplary here: they are less racist and sexist than they were 40 years ago and at the same time more elitist. The one serves as an alibi for the other: when you ask them for more equality, what they give you is more diversity. The neoliberal heart leaps up at the sound of glass ceilings shattering and at the sight of doctors, lawyers and professors of colour taking their place in the upper middle class. Whence the many corporations which pursue diversity almost as enthusiastically as they pursue profits, and proclaim over and over again not only that the two are compatible but that they have a causal connection – that diversity is good for business. But a diversified elite is not made any the less elite by its diversity and, as a response to the demand for equality, far from being left-wing politics, it is right-wing.”


  18. The process of forcing minorities into power isn’t natural, so we need managers to oversee it. The self-justification of a parasitic, busybody class. They create the problems and then claim that only they can solve them.

Comments are closed.