Pardon my generalization, but viewed from 25,000 ft, "diversity" is nothing more than the perverse product that was created when the Supreme Court was forced to recognize that "affirmative action," as they had formulated it, was blatantly unconstitutional, because it MANDATED violation of the 14th Amendment (i.e., unequal treatment of people because of their race).
So, in order to perpetuate the intentional preference of women and so-called "minorities" (the essence of the now-passe "Affirmative Action"), they said that State institutions could establish a goal of having a "diverse" demographic within their borders. That is to say, they couldn't give preference to, for example, "African-Americans," but they could have a goal of maintaining a "diverse" student population or workplace, via the mandatory inclusion of a "certain number" of people of certain - shall we say - genders, racial, or ethnic backgrounds.
In essence, they sought to preserve Affirmative Action, but change the supporting verbage to make it look like it wasn't a blatantly counter-constitutional requirement, which it clearly was.
So basically every state college, university, agency, and instrumentality created new "diversity" programs to replace their now-out-of-favor "Affirmative Action" programs, but with the same people doing essentially the same things as before.
Ironically, it came to pass that everyone who studied the phenomenon of "diversity," concluded that it provided no measurable benefit to any institution where it was implemented. That is to say, the theory was that both "majority" and "minority" populations were theoretically going to benefit from a "diverse" population within the agency or institution, but NO CREDIBLE STUDY HAS EVER FOUND A MEASURABLE BENEFIT RESULTING FROM "DIVERSITY." Therefore, although the USSC said that these agencies and institutions COULD implement diversity programs if they thought they would be beneficial, the implementation of such programs has been mindless and with no good justification other than window-dressing.
Indeed, like Affirmative Action, "diversity" programs call into question the bona fides of EVERY black, female, or other "minority" person in those institutions who achieves some measure of advancement. For a prominent example, there are even those who question FLOTUS' position as the Diversity Director of a hospital group in Chicago (at $350 thousand p.a.), with basically no credentials other than the color of her skin - attributing this appointment to nothing but "diversity" bullshit. Especially since the position was never filled when she left, implying that it was a make-work bullshit position in the first place.
Parenthetically, I will mention that the old, outdated "Affirmative Action" LIVES, in the form of contractual requirements (not subject to constitutional constraints, since they are "voluntary") that flow down from Federal government contracts, subcontracts, and funding. These requirements allow DOL auditors to get into the shorts of not only every significant government contractor, but subcontractors, vendors, service providers, consultants, ad infinitum. As an illustration of how pervasive this insidious requirement can be, there is current a lawsuit by a couple of Pittsburgh hospitals, as they fight a federal audit of their hiring practices. They have never signed a government contract or subcontract, but the Feds claim jurisdiction (and the right to demand an "Affirmative Action" program), because some Federal government employees obtained treatment in these hospitals, which treatment was paid for by Government healthcare plans.
Nauseating isn't it?
Diversity = unconstitutional bullshit.
So, in order to perpetuate the intentional preference of women and so-called "minorities" (the essence of the now-passe "Affirmative Action"), they said that State institutions could establish a goal of having a "diverse" demographic within their borders. That is to say, they couldn't give preference to, for example, "African-Americans," but they could have a goal of maintaining a "diverse" student population or workplace, via the mandatory inclusion of a "certain number" of people of certain - shall we say - genders, racial, or ethnic backgrounds.
In essence, they sought to preserve Affirmative Action, but change the supporting verbage to make it look like it wasn't a blatantly counter-constitutional requirement, which it clearly was.
So basically every state college, university, agency, and instrumentality created new "diversity" programs to replace their now-out-of-favor "Affirmative Action" programs, but with the same people doing essentially the same things as before.
Ironically, it came to pass that everyone who studied the phenomenon of "diversity," concluded that it provided no measurable benefit to any institution where it was implemented. That is to say, the theory was that both "majority" and "minority" populations were theoretically going to benefit from a "diverse" population within the agency or institution, but NO CREDIBLE STUDY HAS EVER FOUND A MEASURABLE BENEFIT RESULTING FROM "DIVERSITY." Therefore, although the USSC said that these agencies and institutions COULD implement diversity programs if they thought they would be beneficial, the implementation of such programs has been mindless and with no good justification other than window-dressing.
Indeed, like Affirmative Action, "diversity" programs call into question the bona fides of EVERY black, female, or other "minority" person in those institutions who achieves some measure of advancement. For a prominent example, there are even those who question FLOTUS' position as the Diversity Director of a hospital group in Chicago (at $350 thousand p.a.), with basically no credentials other than the color of her skin - attributing this appointment to nothing but "diversity" bullshit. Especially since the position was never filled when she left, implying that it was a make-work bullshit position in the first place.
Parenthetically, I will mention that the old, outdated "Affirmative Action" LIVES, in the form of contractual requirements (not subject to constitutional constraints, since they are "voluntary") that flow down from Federal government contracts, subcontracts, and funding. These requirements allow DOL auditors to get into the shorts of not only every significant government contractor, but subcontractors, vendors, service providers, consultants, ad infinitum. As an illustration of how pervasive this insidious requirement can be, there is current a lawsuit by a couple of Pittsburgh hospitals, as they fight a federal audit of their hiring practices. They have never signed a government contract or subcontract, but the Feds claim jurisdiction (and the right to demand an "Affirmative Action" program), because some Federal government employees obtained treatment in these hospitals, which treatment was paid for by Government healthcare plans.
Nauseating isn't it?
Diversity = unconstitutional bullshit.
