I used to say that if Bill Clinton became a hypocrite, it would represent a big improvement. (To be a hypocrite, you have to believe something while acting or speaking as though you don’t, and I was not sure that Clinton actually believed anything.) Similarly, I’m tempted to say that diversiphiles have a double standard, except that I’m not sure that they have a standard of any kind.
For example, the Washington Post today quotes a prominent black critic of Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele’s campaign to be elected to the U.S. Senate. (Steele, a Republican, is the first black to be elected to statewide office in Maryland.)
He can’t expect African American support just because he’s an African American….
Of course not. Nor should he. But this critic, Weldon Latham, a black lawyer in the District with long ties to the Democratic Party, is not known — nor is his party known — for opposition to racial preferences. They favor black applicants to college or for a job or for government contracts being given special, favorable treatment “just because [they’re] African American.”
They justify this discrimination, most of the time, because of the reputed benefits of pigmentary “diversity,” but would not Steele, by their criteria, bring “diversity” to the U.S. Senate?
In order to be consistent (assuming for the moment, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, that consistency is something they value), shouldn’t diversiphiles insist that colleges, employers, etc., not only require applicants to list their race but also their political philosophy or affiliation? That would at least make it easier to act on their apparent belief that black or Hispanic Republicans or conservatives possess no “diversity” worth imparting, even to institutions that have few of them.
