8-11-2003

Phillip Cunio's Commentary: Diversity Part 1

8-11-2003 Alright, kids, friends, and other readers, welcome to the first of the Diversity Series lectures. This is where I examine several questions related to this very current issue and pass on my findings, as always, exclusively to The Snod. Specific topics will include, but may not be limited to, the nature of diversity, discrimination, and whether or not diversity, in and of itself, is possessed of such laudable virtues as so many have, of late, ascribed unto it. Please note that I harbor no beliefs about the innate superiority or inferiority of any race, nationality, or other random subset of the species, save that I myself am smarter than most (as my frequent readers will no doubt have long ago surmised). If you think I'm bigoted, write me and say so. I will write an essay pretending to be the most racist man alive, and then gleefully watch you dance around in moronic anger. If you include your own personal victim-minority-group designation, I'll be glad to pick more than particularly on that oh-so-blessed-to-have-you population.
        That said, today's question: Is diversity really so great? I'm working off of comments I've heard before, things I've seen myself, but particularly off a column from the June 25 Orlando Sentinel money section (section C), called "Diversity is good for companies."
        You see, that's a point I've heard made before, but with schools, universities, or other institution-of-writer's-choice instead of companies. And that's just what I'm wondering. Why is diversity so good, for anybody? The column we're examining was authored by a Susan Strother Clarke, and I'd like to examine some of her comments verbatim. For example: "A work force that employs and promotes minorities and women makes good sense." Why? It would seem that "companies [in favor of diversity] have revenue of more than $1 trillion a year and hire thousands of newly minted graduates." Ah-ha. Diversity is good because everyone, or at least the richer and more important ones, are doing it. That is one of the reasons I'm conducting this lecture series. I have a feeling that diversity is so well-spoken-of, if not just as well-regarded, simply because it's in fashion to do so. Government groups are speaking in favor of diversity. Business and societal leaders, or at least certain of them, take actions which either favor or appear to favor diversity. Influential persons talk of diversity almost as if it were a good for its own sake, yet one also hears how it is good for everyone, as if it were a means to an end as well.
        It needn't be said that certain other, sometimes less-savory, issues of the day were at one time well-spoken-of by many of the above personages. But, it also stands to reason that anything that everyone does, and does without ill-effects, can't be that bad. So, which is it? Is this "oh-the-value-of-diversity" movement a grassroots thing, or relatively so, or is it just a new policy practiced by certain boards of directors, select college administrations, and visionary others? I dunno. I can't personally speak for the opinions of everyone in the world.
        So, what if it's a groundswell of feeling that's finally reaching the open? That's good. If so many people think it's so great and important, than it is, by that very fact. But what if it's just the latest trendy idea from the Man? Well, then it could be our leaders leading us into a bold new era, which is what they're supposed to do, or it could just be another brilliant marketing strategy (from whom will you buy? those with the all-important appearance of moral high ground, or those without?).
        Hmm. All in all, let's say diversity-is-good looks like it might have some merit on that basis, and might not. No telling just yet. If it's so popular, maybe there's good reasons and we should all jump on the freedom train with our brothers and sisters. But it also may be that we're just being told it's a good thing, just like we were told smoking was a good thing, or like we were told smoking was a bad thing, 50 years later.
        Then we get to this, where Clarke quotes an Eastman Kodak Co. spokesman: "'We think an inclusive work force gives us employees who mirror our customers.' That means making sure that the people who develop and market products look and think like the customers they hope to reach." Well, it's a good thought, but isn't the whole point of a marketing expert that you can hire somebody who knows what will sell best to all kinds of different groups, not just his own? It sounds like saying, "Let's hire someone with every different kind of hair color, and then ask the redhead what kind of shampoo she thinks redheads will like, and the blond can tell us what kind of "nourishment" by oils his hair prefers, and so on." You could just hire Frankie the Hair Master, who knows that Chemical X brings out the natural color on a redhead, and Chemical K will help the blond (or anyone, for that matter) control his frizziness. Frankie can tell you all you need to know about everyone, because that's his job. The color-haired people can tell you what they would like, because that's just what they would like. All things considered, I think one Frankie is cheaper, and more accurate, than a crew of Hairpersons. That also raises the other issue: if you hire your Haircrew to sell to their own respective market niches, won't they tend to sell it more to themselves? Suppose your black-hair-down-to-the-shoulders person just loves to curl her bangs. Knowing that she shares just a little bit more common ground with the long-black-hair people of the world than does your redhead or your blond, you take her advice and market Natural Bang Curler to her people. But what if some of them, or worse, most of them, much prefer to cut their bangs totally off? Your staff Blackhair is just doing her job; she tells you what she, a black-haired person, likes, and you assume that it applies to all the others to some degree. It's not really her fault that she doesn't know exactly what all the other black-haired people of the world feel.
        So what are these companies doing? Hiring diversely ensures that the products are made in such a way that diverse groups will like them? Hmm. I can understand how this applies to some products, say breakfast cereals, but won't most products be best judged on their quality, regardless of their origin? Think about it. Would you rather buy an ok hammer from Diverse-B-We Hammer Co., or Johnnie the Hammermaster's Super Nail-Driver Deluxe for the same price? Remember that Diverse-B-We designs for what they think are the best interests of many diverse groups, while Johnny sneers at hiring anybody who isn't from a small town in upper Norway, but makes one heck of a hammer.
        I understand that some people might think otherwise, but it's most sensible to go with Johnny. He makes a great hammer, and that's all he cares about. Diverse-B-We isn't a bad company, but they have other worries too. They have to waste time and payroll on watching out for diversity, so if they want to profit, they need to raise their prices. Their 5-dollar hammer is ok, but their best product sells for ten dollars. On the other hand, Johnnie's Own Smashinator 2000 is only 5 bucks, but it's the equal in value of Diverse-B-We's ten-dollar model. Johnnie can can make it for less, you see. That's all he does.
        So what about diversity for its own sake, or for the sake of appealing to diverse customers? Well, the one might be just a scam, and the other would, at least for me, take second place to producing a quality product. On the other hand, if the biggest names in business (read the column to see exactly who) are doing diversity, and still turning out products of (presumably) excellent quality, wouldn't we be wise to follow them?
        That concludes today's lecture. Remember, we won't have a final judgment on diversity until we finish the series. Thoughts of your own? Vile rants about mine? Feel free to write, for my perusal or amusement.