Contradictory ‘Diversity’ Arguments

Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition is pressuring General Motors to increase its number of minority-owned dealerships. GM is eager to comply, but the arguments being used to defend this move reveal the hypocrisy of “diversity” advocates.

 

GM’s VP of Diversity Dealer Relations, Eric Peterson, stated this week, “As you look at the growth and growing diversity in the United States, we’re finding more and more people want to do business with people like themselves.” Mr. Peterson’s belief that people prefer buying cars from dealership owners with similar skin colors is a position that seems to contradict a recent Center for American Progress study which concluded that kids benefit from having teachers of different races.

 

On the one hand, we are told that “diversity” policies are needed because they promote intercultural interaction. On the other hand, the same “diversity” policies are being used, in cases like this, to make sure every individual can do business with someone of the same skin color.

 

It seems the only consistency in these arguments is that racial central planners want to be in charge of economic opportunities and dictate outcomes based on skin color.

 

There are many benefits to having a society comprised of people from diverse backgrounds, cultures, and ethnicities and we are right to strive for a culture that provides fair opportunities for any individual who works to excel. But demands for racial gerrymandering in business, politics, or any segment of society only stall our progress as a nation toward colorblind equality.

 

- Leon Drolet

 

***

Leon Drolet is a former Michigan state representative who chaired the 2006 Michigan Civil Rights Initiative which constitutionally banned race preference policies at public institutions. He is now the Director of Programs at the XIV Foundation.