> Why is it that in 30 years as a technical writer, I have worked with
> exactly one black man and no hispanics?
> And you know, I live in Oakland, this stuff is in my face 24/7.
>
> Maybe it's one of those agree to disagree things.
yesterday, I had to speak to 67 of our top level execs. as I stood at the podium, I looked out onto a sea of white male faces in shirts and ties. With the exception of 4 men from India and two white women, it was all male, all white, all the time.
I live in a city that is 40% white; the rest, people of color, 44% black.
Also, one thing that has me curious, after transcribing is that Michaels says in his interview that capitalism currently needs the best talent at the least cost and that diversity accomplishes that.
That is the most curious statement to me. He says that, right now, they aren't getting the best talent.
*chortle*
He seriously believes that what you get hired for is talent.Fucking ridiculous.
And he seriously believes that what will happen when there's demographic parity is that people will be even more cowed and willing to accept lower wages. I think it's quite the opposite, actually.
there's actually an answer to this puzzle, but I don't think Michaels would get it because his theory won't let him look around the corners of his own theory.
Yes, yes, we know Michaels says that this kind of demographics is just another form of racializing and racism. And yes yes we know Michaels says that even if the faces were 60% people of color that wouldn't touch economic inequality. none of us, as leftists, thinks it does. unlike michaels, most of us tend to think that it doesn't hurt anything _either_. michaels thinks that, if we just pursued economic injustice and gave up on 'diversity' then we'd be much better off. But if the issue is, as Doug poses it, about elites and charities and NGOs all of a sudden concerning themselves with economic inequality or eradicating capitalism, fat fucking chance.
I would love to know the political program is here. In what sense does Michaels' book lead to any kind of engaged political practice. Are we all supposed to continue to lobby the "thought leaders" as elite universities? Are we supposed to lobby our companies to get rid of their diversity statements and start having them pledge allegiance tot he communist manifesto? If Michaels's goal is to see people riled up about the fact that Harvard is a finishing school for the elite, WTF. They were a finishing school for the elite before fucking affirmative action, and the labor movement was stronger then -- supposedly. Didn't make a dent then. I find it utterly absurd, as Eric pointed out, that anyone could be so zeroed in on the elite and fixing their wagons -- as if it would make one dent in anything. As if it wouldn't truly be an exercise in futility to try to get Harvard professors to get upset about economic inequality. Christ.
Also, precisely in terms of those organizations that are supposed to fight the good fight against economic inequality -- unions etc. -- are we supposed to do it the "old" way -- the way before diversity hopeless infected everything? In other words, people of color got upset with the way white people dominated meetings, defined the world from their perch as if only whites existed, so on and so forth. Women made similar criticisms.
Are men and women of color and white women supposed to just put up with the bullshit, lest they get told they are too worried about "diversity" and oh lord, look what happened last time we did that. remember the bad old days of the last quarter of the 20th century. it was horrible! People were so concerned with diversity that we never got anything done. Don't make us go back there!
anyway, i also need to answer brad who has mischaracterized my position in an earlier post, ascribing to me the view that we must change racism first, then class. no, that's NOT my view. but i can see why brad would think that since he doesn't understand that i was speaking to Marx's Letter to Arnold Ruge, which we recently discussed here -- the one about taking sides in current struggles. Michaels takes the "ant-antiracism" side. I think he is dead wrong and sides with a regressive politics.
shag