Directors of Diversity

There are some questions that you cannot ask while you are working.

One of those questions is "Why is the Department of Diversity 90% African American and 20% GLBTadnauseam?"

I suppose another question of the same type is "Why are 40% of Director of Diversity African-American Lesbians?"

We can only speculate about the answers.

One
One answer might be "You cannot understand oppression and support diversity unless you have experienced it."

That implies that racial sensitivity is unteachable and the elimination of oppression is impossible. So we could save a pile of money if we broomed all of the drones out of the Diversity office and put them back into jobs that serve customers and made money.

Two
"Because it is impossible for white people to see or sense oppression against people of color or GLBCadnauseam, people of color need to be in positions where they have carte blanche authority to rectify situations of injustice (situations where the oppression is so arcane that it cannot be explained or justified to non-colored people)."

Eyebrows knitted with consternation...if it is impossible for one race to sense the injustice visited upon those of another race, what protections are in place to ensure that the Avengers of Diversity don't wreak epic injustice on others in their crusade?

I would suggest objective measures like attendance and productivity but I have been told those are "white" constructions that do not comprehend the contributions to the rich tapestry of diversity blah, blah, blah...

Things have changed since I went to grade school. Systems that depend on forces that were not measurable and were invisible to the majority of people had a special name back in the 1960s. It was called magic.

Three
"The Department of Diversity is where the C-Suite banishes perpetual malcontents. The fact that it makes life of people at the operations level a living hell is not important. The assholes in operations get paid a lot of  money for what they do. If they don't like it, McDonalds is hiring."

Besides, most American corporations are money laundering operations. The fact that they manufacture, distribute and sell items is secondary to being able to borrow money cheaply, keeping top executives out of court, and keeping Federal regulators and the media out of their knickers is more important than operations.

Frankly, I fall into this camp. And I accept that the model is perfectly viable as long as American corporations' primary function is to launder money.  Perhaps that is why progressives are so keen to control every decision. When the burden of "supporting diversity" and global warming initiatives and the cause du jour becomes too great, the progressive machine can ensure that consumers have no other viable choices when the dollar Ponzi scheme has a hiccup.