The Presumptuous Elite: Diversity is our strength.
The Reticent Majority: Well, that’s a point of view.
The Presumptuous Elite: Point of view? It is not a point of view. It is a one hundred per cent, cast iron fact.
The Reticent Majority: Really? I’m not so sure. For a start, you need to define it. What do you mean by ‘Diversity’?
The Presumptuous Elite: Oh, for heaven’s sake, I mean proper representation within society: a reasonably accurate mirror, in percentage terms, of the make up of the whole. Men, women. Black, white. Heterosexual, homosexual. Those sorts of things.
The Reticent Majority: What, like tall people and short people? Attractive and plug ugly?
The Presumptuous Elite: Oh, don’t be so damn silly - what’s height and attractiveness got to do with it?
The Reticent Majority: Well, you said a reasonably accurate reflection of the make up of the whole. Doesn’t that include a mix of people with different physical characteristics?
The Presumptuous Elite: No, of course not. I’m talking about characteristics like race, colour, sex …
The Reticent Majority: Well, aren’t they physical characteristics?
The Presumptuous Elite: Now you’re just being bloody argumentative.
The Reticent Majority: Well, yes. I thought we were having a discussion - a debate even? That is, by definition, a tad argumentative, isn’t it? Isn’t that the point?
The Presumptuous Elite: Look, the point is that if a group of people - in a society, a business, whatever - is actually representative of the whole, it will become aware of and recognize the different needs, expectations, and points of view of the various component parts of the group, and be able to respond far more humanely and appropriately.
The Reticent Majority: Ah, I see. So you’re not really talking about debate, more about collaboration?
The Presumptuous Elite: Oh, look, now you’re splitting hairs. For far too long, our societies marginalized particular groups - sexual minorities, disabled people …
The Reticent Majority: Carrot tops!
The Presumptuous Elite: Whaa?
The Reticent Majority: Don’t forget the red-haired folks - particularly red-haired blokes. Female red-haired beauties get a pass but the blokes really suffer. Think about poor old Prince Harry.
The Presumptuous Elite: Oh, for heaven’s sake, this is ridiculous - hair-colour, attractiveness, height - is that all you can think of?
The Reticent Majority: It’s important - you try putting a basketball team together with short-arses.
The Presumptuous Elite: Give me strength. This is exactly the kind of nonsense and abuse that we want to be rid of. For far too long we allowed particular groups to dominate at the expense of others. There is huge diversity in our societies and yet, up to now, we allowed a sliver of the whole to willfully exclude much of the potential vibrancy.
The Reticent Majority: It’ll backfire, mate.
The Presumptuous Elite: Oh, really, where does that … ahem … profound assertion come from?
The Reticent Majority: I’m just thinking about that lovely London headmistress, Katharine Birbalsingh, who founded the Michaela Community School. Recently, when a Muslim pupil put her coat down in the playground and started praying, and other children felt obliged to follow suit, Ms Birbalsingh realized the only way to stop this ‘dis-integration’ was to ban all prayers by all religious groups.
The Presumptuous Elite: And your point is?
The Reticent Majority: Boiled right down to basics, it’s an example of competition being replaced with co-operation. To do so, means cutting back to the lowest common denominator - that is, get rid of differences, cancel them, shut them out altogether.
The Presumptuous Elite: That’s rubbish.
The Reticent Majority: Okay, you’re welcome to your opinion, but just you wait and see. Replacing competition with cooperation can only work if all constituencies agree with that approach. All it takes to wreck the consensus is one dogmatic party. And that party can, of course, bide its time, wait until the moment is right, then simply decide to enforce its dogma.
The Presumptuous Elite: You’re so negative! So ready to think ill of other people! You aren’t even prepared to give co-operation and collaboration a chance.
The Reticent Majority: I’m just being realistic. I’m just saying that, if the whole includes a strongly dogmatic group - particularly one with a strong masculine stance - the risk, ultimately, that it will enforce its dominance must be extremely high.
The Presumptuous Elite: Masculine stance? Where does this sexist bias come into it?
The Reticent Majority: That’s funny, you accusing me of a sexist bias! Co-operation and collaboration, and, generally, team-based thinking over individual thinking, are feminine rather than masculine traits. And, anyway, you can’t have diversity in the way you describe it and meritocracy.
The Presumptuous Elite: But I’m not talking about getting rid of masculinity - although we could do without toxic masculinity. I just want it put into balance with all the other diverse elements.
The Reticent Majority: Oh, come on now, you can’t have it both ways. You can either select on the basis of merit, where one of the most reliable indicators is IQ, or you can opt for equity - that is, equality of outcome - in which case selection will, so to speak, mimic the IQ bell curve. That latter trend is clearly on display. A recent Canadian meta-analysis has shown that mean undergraduates’ IQ has fallen 17 points, from 119 in 1939 to 102 in 2022. If that’s to continue to be the case you might as well just select university entrants by putting names into a hat … but don’t then expect wonderful results.
The Presumptuous Elite: I don’t care what you say, it is way past time for us to better reflect the diversity of our societies.
The Reticent Majority: Doesn’t bloody bother you, of course. You live in your own privileged bubble.
The Presumptuous Elite: Ah, there we go … abuse! That’s all you lot can come up with. I shan’t listen to any more of this nonsense. Anyway, I’ve got a private aeroplane to catch.
(With grateful acknowledgement to the late, great Brian O’Nolan, a.k.a Flann O’Brien, a.k.a Myles na Gopaleen for the general conversational idea I’ve tried to employ in this piece.)
Thanks for reading.
The image at the top is from Shutterstock
Here it is. https://drnevillebuch.com/rights-and-fairness-response-to-the-david-pindar-article/
It is very good. I agree that these conversations do not get us very far (fair). In my view there is philosophical compatibility between rights and fairness, but it takes reasoned political compromise. Everyone should have a secured place in society but it will not necessarily be comfortable. Comfort comes from accepting the reasoned political compromise. I would like to blog that out myself. Is it possible for me to reprint your blog here, to make my point.