The Weaponization of Diversity

> But I’m afraid that a segment of the community [people of color] – either well-intentioned or not – has chosen to weaponize the issue of diversity in a way that is not only hostile and disingenuous, but counterproductive to its own cause.

> Recklessly and indiscriminately warmongering over diversity is the business world’s equivalent of breaking windows and looting.

While some might characterize the piece as a little tone-deaf, they're the same sort of arguments that've been made since the introduction of Affirmative Action. First, a misrepresentation of sociological concepts like "institutional racism," and the conflation those who discuss its effects or potential solutions to "weaponizing" diversity or claiming that it is caused by malicious actors. The author even goes as far as to say:

> There are historical, cultural, and socioeconomic reasons ... that explain why a disproportionately small number of people in certain ethnic/minority groups are able to achieve the high levels of performance and economic success

But the author doesn't seem to even touch on what those are, other than drilling into the issue being "cultural." The "culture" of people of color has long been blamed as the cause of inequality since at least the Civil Rights Movement. Other, rather cryptic references exist for what the real reason for inequality is, right before the author jumps to a different point:

> If we’re honest, we’ll first acknowledge all of the nuances and complexities – some of them clearly uncomfortable – about the background sources of the problem.

I'm not sure what exactly what that's supposed to mean.

I think articles like this gain momentum due to the "Candice Owens" effect, and the defensiveness of all people to perceived claims of racism. It is a fundamental misrepresentation of what diversity advocates actually advocate, in the name of being "honest" or "decent." It's unfortunate that the author doesn't engage with actual strong arguments in favor of diverse workforces, namely the clear, well documented benefits to both businesses and individuals that a diverse workplace provides, rather than this strawman of someone "weaponizing diversity."

The claim that non-white cultures are inferior to white culture in some way has historically been a justification for inequality (and for colonialism, slavery, and other systems we'd likely agree are manifestly unjust.) I'm disappointed the author didn't engage with diversity advocates or their claims in a more meaningful way. He acknowledges the well-researched sociological evidence for institutional racism, and I feel like a discussion that starts there is more valuable than one that knocks down this strawman of the person who "weaponizes diversity."

Though to the author's credit, the piece doesn't read like it's intended to dismantle an entire field of study, rather it seems to jump between sharing anecdotes and extrapolating widespread political solutions from those experiences.

> If the world I was living in had deep, systemic discrimination against latinos, surely I was an easy target. And yet here I am.

So many of these articles are a single person who succeeds and as a result declares racism must not exist. A personal anecdote is always convincing (as many people know), but anytime an actual rigorous statistical study of this comes up it's shows that clear systemic racism exists.

And people love to read anecdotes like this, because it's a very easy way to ease discomfort. The discomfort that shows that deep seated racism exists in the US, and that our country in a number of areas isn't doing a good job of living up to its ideals. But in the end it's an anecdote and data shows it's not the case.