Why Isn't Height Diversity A Priority?
Print Friendly and PDF

Earlier: Anti-Beautyism: "Why Is It OK To Be Mean To The Ugly?"

From iSteve commenter James N. Kennett:

Douglas Murray had a laugh about this in one of his videos. He imagines a TV panel discussion where the presenter takes questions from the audience. After a few questions, he turns down the next person who puts up his hand. “No,” he says, “we’ve had enough questions from people who are over 6 feet tall. Can we have a question from somebody who is shorter?”

This goes to the heart of several questions about diversity. The best argument for diversity is that it is foolish to throw away the talents of people who are not white male cis-hetero. This is equally true of the talents of short or ugly people. However, this argument is seldom the one that is actually deployed, at least not for the last 40 years. You are much more likely to hear that, even if the people whom you employ from minority groups are not as talented as your white male cis-hetero staff, you are better off with a diverse workforce because diversity itself is a strength.

Of course, it’s nonsense. Short or ugly people might be able to tell you at great length about their mistreatment by wider society (but thankfully they nearly always have the maturity and stoicism not to keep talking about the subject). Beyond that, what is their special expertise? What do they add to the mix? They are just as good as anybody else at nearly all jobs. They can do just as well as the next person at, say, spreadsheets. They do not, however, have a special “take” on spreadsheets, without which your company would become uncompetitive.

The same is true for race, sexual orientation and so on. But the current orthodoxy pretends otherwise.

[Comment at Unz.com]

Print Friendly and PDF