Diversity, equity, inclusion. The mantra of every
Human Resources Department in the land. They all appear to be very admirable
goals to which to aspire. But are they? Let's consider each in its turn.
Diversity
Miriam-Webster tells us that diversity
means "variety," or, for our purposes, "the inclusion of people
of different races, cultures, etc. in a group or organization."
I take back nothing which I have written in the
past. I believe that there should be diversity in the workplace. But not simply
the hiring of people from "different races, cultures, etc.," but
people who either reflect the demographics of a company's clientele or the
community in which the business is located, whichever the owner feels is best.
Let's do a little of what is called ad
absurdum, meaning taking an argument to an absurb extreme. It would be
ridiculous for a company located in a predominantly Hispanic community in the
United States, which only has clients in India, to only hire Scandinavians. It
would make no sense and could not possibly be justified.
But consider this: If the company is located in an
"Indian neighborhood," and has only, or predominantly, Indian
employees, then the company reflects the ethnic makeup of both its clientele
and location, but is not diversified unless we dig deeper. Gender immediately
comes to mind. For sake of argument, let's assume that half the employees are
female, and half are male. That may or may not reflect the actual demographics
of the community, but let's give that one a pass.
Next you could consider religion. How many are
Hindu? How many are Muslim? In case you don't know it, there are also Christian
and even Jewish Indians (5,000 in total, if you're interested!). And, of
course, we cannot forget sexual orientation and disability status. So, how much
diversification is there and how much is needed to count as
"diversified?" When you get into the minutia of demographics things
can become quite complicated.
For example, President Biden likes diversification.
His spokesperson is an African-American female homosexual. So he has checked
three boxes. Can he claim all three or just one or two? (To use a Seinfeldism,
can we have double- or triple-dipping?) And what about his Supreme Court
nominee? He made it quite clear he would only consider Black women. But the
woman he chose could not tell the Senate Judiciary Committee what
a woman is! So, out of respect for the Justice, perhaps he gets credit for
placing a "Black" on the Court, but we can't say for sure if she is
actually a "she." Ridiculous? Moronic? Insane? Of course, but that is
what this article is about, the insanity of the Woke culture.
Now the good Justice could have had a great retort.
All she had to say to the Distinguished Senator who was questioning her was,
"Senator, I may not be able to define it but I know one when I see
one." Everyone would have laughed, and maybe she would not have looked so
foolish. (The reference, in
case you do not know it, is to Justice Potter Stewart's decision in the
1964 Jacobellis pornography case when he stated, "I shall
not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be
embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed
in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture
involved in this case is not that.”)
Let's agree that we all understand and accept the
need for demographic diversity reflecting either a company's location or
clientele, if both are not possible, to the greatest extent practicable. Now
that that is out of the way, let's consider another type of diversity, which I have previously raised,
decision making.
People reach decisions differently. People learn
differently. Some are visual. They have to read the information to be able to
appreciate it. Others are auditory; they have to hear it. In my case, I can sit
down and read a book of hundreds of pages but I cannot listen to the audio
version of the same tome. I concentrate on, and analyze information through my
eyes, not my ears. And, of course, there are those who can only learn by doing.
A company should have people who learn and process
information differently. All have benefits. All are important.
Enough about diversity. Let's move on to the E in
DEI.
Equity
Equity means "freedom from bias or favoritism." How
can that possibly be translated into the workplace? "Bias" and
"favoritism" are human traits. We all have them. We like one type of
food more than another. We like one person more than another. It is ridiculous
to assume or claim otherwise.
In the workplace, I have had colleagues with whom I
enjoyed working and colleagues with whom I refused to work. It had nothing to
do with who or what they were, just how professional or talented they were. I
am certain that most of you reading this are nodding in agreement. So, let's
replace "equity" with "equality."
Of course, people are not equal. Some are stronger,
smarter, or more skilled at certain things than others. I have known people who
can do complex computations in their heads. I can barely handle two plus two.
There is no such thing as equality except in one regard. And that is the only
"regard" that matters.
Everyone, regardless of who or what they are,
should have an equal chance to prove themselves. I have advised bosses to give
colleagues a chance. Some have surprised us. I would go so far as to say that
they surprised themselves! Others crashed and burned and we had a mess to clean
up. (For the record, no one was ever forced to take on an assignment; they
wanted the assignments, the chance to prove themselves.) It is just that some
could not handle the responsibility. But everyone was given support and an
equal chance to succeed, and that is what "equality" should mean.
Which leaves us with the I in our three-letter
acronym.
Inclusion
What does "inclusion" mean? Returning to
our friends at Merriam-Webster, we learn that it means
"the act or practice of including and accommodating people who have
historically been excluded (as because of their race, gender, sexuality, or
ability)."
In other words, there is no need for the
"I" because, by definition, if you are diversified you are including
persons who may have otherwise been excluded. The "I" is redundant.
Therefore, I propose replacing it with an "L" for
"liberty," meaning that the workplace is a safe place for everyone to
express their opinion without fear of retaliation, retribution, attack or
demonization (the antithesis of Wokeism). If one person does not like something
someone else says, they should have to explain their objections and then the
person can explain what they said, why they said it, and choose whether or not
an apology is warranted. (That's how adults do it!) The problem is, as I
understand it, the Woke are not forgiving and view apologies as a sign of
weakness, and react accordingly. My advice, if you believe you did nothing wrong,
has always, and will always be, to double down. In
other words, the workplace should be free of Cancel Culture which, of course, is one
of the pillars of Wokeism.
Everyone should agree that aiming for a diversified
workforce where everyone has an equal chance to succeed, and is free to express
their opinions, is noble. It should definitely not be a pipedream. The problem
is that DEI is part of Wokeism which, as I have written previously,
is a serious danger to business.
Wokeism
In the present context, Merriam-Webster does not
even have a definition of "woke." I therefore turn to dictionary.com where we learn that there
are two definitions: "having or marked by an active awareness of systemic
injustices and prejudices, especially those involving the treatment of ethnic,
racial, or sexual minorities," and "Disparaging of or relating
to a liberal progressive orthodoxy, especially promoting inclusive policies or
ideologies that welcome or embrace ethnic, racial, or sexual minorities."
Fancy words. Nice sounding words. No doubt, in many
cases, said by people with the best of intensions. But then you get things like
this, posted online, on Twitter, albeit subsequently taken down (which is why I
don't show the person's name.)
This would be funny if it were not so dangerous. It happens in the workplace. Sort of like, wait for it, "Using Less Anesthesia in Surgeries Could Reduce the Carbon Footprint of Hospitals, Experts Suggest." The article, as you will see, was published in the Science Times, referring to research done at the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, Michigan, and published in Anesthesia Progress. The claim was repeated by a physician from Henry Ford, but what is curious is that the study seems to have been authored by a dentist and someone with a Master's degree in Public Health. (Click on the previous link and see for yourself.) Now according to an article on Fox, titled "Major medical group wipes study advocating doctors give less anesthesia to reduce carbon footprint," "The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) deleted an article from its website this week highlighting research and comments from a doctor who advocates for reducing anesthetic gas in surgery to combat climate change." Well, apparently, as you have already discovered, they did not do a very good job deleting it because I found it, albeit it just the homepage, elsewhere. I guess it is true that nothing ever really is deleted from the Internet. (Or maybe there were two articles?)
What's the saying? "Be afraid. Be very
afraid."
When I was in university, one of my professors told
us to consider Communism a religion. Winston Churchill spoke of "the Nazi
religion." He also described Fascism as a religion, as well as Communism.
I believe Wokeism is also a religion. On the micro level, it's target is
employers. Internationally, the target is global warming or climate change. But
what is it really?
Well, in a word, it's "crazy" and the
target, as you are about to learn, is business. Now I don't have any children
myself, although, as I understand it, according to the Woke, I can now get
pregnant. I don't want to. And I certainly don't know how. But the climate
kooks will like me because my not having children is apparently good for the
planet. Perhaps they will build a statue in my honor. May I humbly suggest a
bald eagle flying majestically through the heavens as I, to paraphrase the
poet, "reach out my wing and touch the face of God?"
SOURCE:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/your-kids-bad-environment-leftist-environmentalists-would-have-us-believe?test=81c860ffa15ec5d685c6547209e184c2
SOURCE: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/20/style/breed-children-climate-change.html
But to be serious, every so often, as the adage
goes, "someone says the quiet part out loud." And so Greta Thunberg,
hero (I assume it is no longer acceptable to say "heroine") of the
Woke, said the quiet part out loud. Climate change is about anti-capitalism. Sad
thing is, that is a surprise to absolutely no one who really investigated
climate change. Does it exist? Of course? Is the temperature rising? Yes. Is it
an existential threat to humanity? Not quite.
If it were, would the deacons (no disrespect meant
to real holders of the title) of the Church of Climate Change, when they
recently had their annual pilgrimage to Davos, would they have flown in 1,000 private jets?
(OK, the article says it was 1,040. Why quibble?) But let's not chastise these
leaders of the Faith. After all, they helped what I assume are small
businesswomen, engaged, at least in Switzerland, in a perfectly legal trade,
albeit prostitution. Isn't
it nice that rich men are helping women support themselves?
This appears to be accurate but I can't provide sources. It comes from a post on LinkedIn. (Thacker Pass is in Nevada.) That said, this is sourced:
It is sort of like one of the symbols of Wokeism,
the electric vehicle. At least in the United States, and, no doubt, the
percentage fluctuates by state and county, but, on average, sixty-one percent of electricity comes
from fossil fuels. So much for clean energy. But don't chastise
these people for being hypocrites. There's more. The minerals for the EV
batteries, especially nickel and cobalt, come from African mines controlled by
China, employing slave and child labor, or
from Russia, which sells
the minerals to China for refining, clearly neither being engaged in
environmentally conscientious methods of mining or refining. (I wonder if any
of the slaves or children are Woke?) In any case, however you slice it, EVs are
very dirty. Now you may chastise.
But I digress, I asked if climate change is an existential
threat to humanity? Well, you tell me.
Remember the hole in the ozone layer? That was
real. Countries took it seriously. How do we know? The Montreal Protocols of 1987.
Here's a random shot of it:
Notice the language? "Each Party shall
ensure..." That means the signatories have to, must, no choice in the
matter, do what they promise to do.
Now let's take a look at the Paris Convention of 2015 on
Climate Change. Again, a random sampling:
And that is why Wokeism is a threat to business.
When you hire someone who is Woke, by definition they will disrupt the proper
operations of your company by crying sexism, racism, or whatever
"ism" is the "ism" of the day. If you will, you will be
endangering the solvency of your business. You will have to spend time dealing
with moronic proposals like changing surgical protocols! Even though they are
moronic, a response will be required! If HR is spending all their time
babysitting, their important work will not get done.
Now I am certain that some of you are thinking, or
are about to, that I am engaging in conspiracy theories. Woke employees, taking
jobs at companies that don't meet their standards, simply to destroy them from
within is ridiculous. Well, keep reading.
Wokeism may not be akin to religion. It may be more
serious than that. The better analogy may be to an addiction. Addicts never
take responsibility for their actions; they always blame the substance. It's
the alcohol. It's the drugs. They are the victim. Even if they rob,
assault or murder they always play the victim card. It was the
drugs/alcohol that made me do it! It wasn't my fault! The workplace
equivalent goes like this: He's attacking me because I'm a woman.
Because I'm a person of color. Because of my sexual orientation. Because of my
religion. The idea that someone could condemn their actions or disagree
with them for substantive reasons never enters their minds.
The Cure
The cure, I believe, is to have a very clear and
detailed employee handbook and, an employment attorney on staff (perhaps in the
role of HR director) or on retainer (depending on the size of the company) so
that, at the first sign of Wokeism, it can be dealt with quickly, thoroughly,
effectively and legally. You don't want a bunch of quislings and, to resurrect another
ancient term, albeit in a different context, fellow-travelers, running around your office,
whose loyalties are not to you and you alone, but to a movement. After all, it
is far from farfetched to assume that people who would glue their hands to,
and throw soup on
masterpieces of art, would not hesitate to work for a company that is not up to
their standards with the aim of sabotage. Don't forget what happened at Basecamp, Disney, Netflix, and Spotify.
"But" you are saying, "those are big fish; I'm just a little
minnow." The Woke don't discriminate, even a cafe owned by homosexuals was
not Woke enough for the employees, so they shut it down!
(Actually, because of the heading, I prefer this article, "Woke
Coffee Shop Closes Down After Insane Demands From Even-More-Woke
Employees.") In other words, it could happen to you. Wokeism, or Woke
employees, could be crypto!
In addition to the employee handbook and attorney,
you should also make it a habit of asking candidates questions concerning how
they deal with rejection and then confirm their responses with past employers
or supervisors (i.e., their references). It may not be legal to ask someone if
they are Woke, especially if it is considered a religion or "creed"
which, in some jurisdictions,
is a protected class. (I am not an attorney, so I am not going to deal with the
question of "reasonable accommodations"
which Woke employees could request.)
If you really want to hear about the ridiculousness
of Wokeism and climate change, there is no one better than Konstantin
Kisin. Not because of the humor, but the conclusion. And he is
right. We have to have faith in our young people, the future scientists and
engineers who will solve these climate problems, as they always have.
And that is what is ironic about the Worshippers of
Wokeism. They have no faith in humanity. All they know, all they preach, all
they believe in, is victimhood. Who, in their right mind, wants employees who
every time someone disagrees with them, play the victim card? They are so
sensitive, which brings me to the cover photo of this article from the IT Department,
not the Gender Studies Department or School of Social
Work mind you, but the IT Department of Stanford
University. To be fair, the backlash was so great they were
apparently forced to reverse themselves.
But you can still find remnants of it on the web.
Read it. If it were not so pathetic it would be funny. But first, watch the
video!
https://youtu.be/zJdqJu-6ZPo
And for the haters who wish
to "cancel" me, I shall once again quote Lord
Randolph Churchill, Winston's father: "I am only too happy to bear the
brunt of a little temporary effervescence and to be the scapegoat on which
doomed mediocrities may lay the burden of their exposed incapacity..."
DEI - Replace the E and Get Rid of the I and the Woke (linkedin.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment