In one of the most unapologetically ironic statements I have ever read, Alexandra Jaffe, Andrew Taylor, and Aamer Madhani of the Associated Press daringly wrote, “President-elect Joe Biden will have an all-female senior communications team at his White House, reflecting his stated desire to build out a diverse White House team…”. They included one of Biden’s quotes which constituted the second most unapologetically ironic statement I have ever read: “‘These qualified, experienced communicators bring diverse perspectives to their work…”. What am I missing? What don’t I understand? What does diversity even mean anymore?
This selection is not an achievement. It’s not difficult to choose one person over another for a top position within the White House when everyone being considered is qualified enough to fill these roles. Therefore, his choices seem to largely be influenced by the “progressive” side of the Democratic Party. And what better progressive ideal is there than hiring only women? It’s not difficult to just select someone especially since hiring any woman, especially a woman of color, is considered a great choice, regardless of most other aspects. He didn’t start some grassroot women’s organization. He didn’t champion women’s rights in Saudi Arabia. Why, then, is he being extolled for his choices?
It baffles me that he (or his cronies) decided to not even choose one man to fill one of the seven positions available. We couldn’t even be a token minority on the team.
I gratefully disclose I’m not alone in my frustrated confusion, and one of the men that sides with me is far more distinguished than I may ever be. Who’s this preeminent ally? None other than Dr. Jerry Coyne, award-winning American biologist who specialized in speciation and evolutionary genetics, authored several best-selling books, was chosen to be a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and was elected President of the Society for the Study of Evolution in 2011 (among many many other achievements).
Reader, you must be perplexed. Why should I cite an individual of seemingly little relevance to the current discussion? I shall cite him because he is an avid blogger (“Why Evolution is True”) of societally-germane topics like pseudoscience, social justice, and academic freedom. A self-described “traditional liberal”, Coyne once offered a reflection titled “How much diversity of thought do you achieve by promoting diversity of gender and ethnicity?” This post was his response to an email he received from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences which read:
Dear Professor Coyne,
A key element of the Academy’s recently announced Strategic Plan is to ensure that the Academy’s work is informed by, and reflective of, the breadth of intellectual life in the twenty-first century, and to do this by increasing the diversity of our members and staff. The Academy, therefore, is currently implementing and developing a number of approaches intended to increase the diversity of the membership. Monitoring progress will be a priority going forward.
To assist the Academy in these efforts, we are asking members to complete a simple survey related to race and ethnicity. If you have not already done so, please use the following link to access the survey on the Academy’s secure website.
Coyne correctly mentions, “Now we all know what this means. ‘Diversity’ means ‘the relative number of women and minorities.'” He continues, “The implicit assumption of this initiative is that the most efficient way to ensure diversity of intellectual life is to increase the diversity of sex (or gender) and ethnicity.” He adds, “What bothers me a bit about the announcement above…is…that diversity of gender and ethnicity are roughly equivalent to diversity of intellectual breadth, as well as the remediation of the latter involves asking only about one’s sex and ethnicity.” Hence, Coyne recognizes the same faulty logic that I noticed in the Associated Press article – “it’s pretty clear what they mean by ‘diversity and inclusivity’ here, and it has little to do with intellectual diversity,” which I assume is the “lofty” goal of Biden’s choosing of only women to lead the senior communications team.
Similar to Coyne, I actively support the ambition of ensuring equal opportunity among all members of society. The environments in which many people grew up are repulsively unfair and unequivocally bode poor career and welfare outcomes for these people. Yet, the goal of blatantly including historically-excluded groups on a team to simply establish demographic “diversity” does not logically entail the achievement of noble intellectual breadth. Coyne, in his consideration of the Academy’s request, concurs with me : “it seems a bit shortsighted to think that one’s sex and ethnicity will be ineluctably connected with certain points of view missing in the Academy.” Simply constructing a team of only female employees does not necessitate the genesis of political diversity in thought and ability, which should be (though I know won’t be) the aim of Biden’s nominations.
Politically, this problem is rife within the Democratic Party – Democrats unremittingly salivate over maximizing hollow and commercially-selling “diversity”. However, they also sponsor many important causes such as promoting comprehensive climate change policies to transition to a greener, less-polluting, and more-efficient future. Republicans are Republicans and have ideas that may have been progressive half-a-century ago. Sure, they may not try so excessively (or at all) to promote artificial diversity, but they also believe that coal mining is a relevant, productive industry in 2020. Cacophony on both sides, you see? To whom should we listen? I’d take my chances with Coyne and his companions. Scientists are usually a safe bet.
TalkJaw - A Forum for Men's Issues 