‘Diversity is our strength.’ One hears this, or myriad variants of the same idea, unrelentingly. Certainly, I work in an Australian university where the extent of higher-ups pushing this notion does indeed qualify as unrelenting, even matching totalitarian state levels of propaganda. But even outside the hallowed halls of impartial, politically balanced academia (did I write that with a straight face?) the mantra or cliché that diversity somehow delivers a stronger balance sheet or a more cohesive society or just better outcomes is pervasive in today’s democracies that have committed themselves to multiculturalism and to the various neo-Marxist versions of feminism.  Sure, those spouting these ‘diversity is a panacea’ nostrums never cash out the claim.  They never tell us precisely how ‘diversity’ is making society better or wealthier or more unified. We are all just supposed to take it on faith, as it were. We’re just to believe the bureaucratic, political and various professional body elites who push this line, and believe it simply because they are the ones telling us it’s so.

But you and I both know there isn’t a lot of evidence to support this cliché. Worse, if you’re like me you’re thinking that these are the same elites who massively failed us by imposing thuggish, illiberal lockdowns that weaponised the police, closed schools, infringed all sorts of free speech criticisms and also transferred huge wealth from poor to rich and from young to old (think asset inflation after steroidal money printing and unchecked government spending). You’re remembering these are the same elites who likewise failed us by not being willing to stand up to a transgender lunacy lobby that makes those with IQs over 130 unable to say what a woman is. The same elites, too, who failed us by abandoning all scepticism and critical thinking around our changing weather, willingly impoverishing us in the patent untruth that renewables are cheaper all-up. Like me you’re wondering what the odds are that these same people are likely to be right about anything. (Hint: not bloody high.)  And certainly not very high that they are right about some motherhood-type slogan meant to silence debate about large-scale immigration and about their efforts to take merit out of any and all hiring and ‘who gets into university’ decisions. This looks a lot like one of those Mark Twain situations of being quietly coerced to ‘believe what you know ain’t so’.

But let’s resist the temptation to mock this cliché that ‘diversity is our strength’ and consider it a bit more carefully. We all know, for instance, that a bit of genetic diversity in parents is better for the offspring of that match. All things considered, we’d prefer to avoid siblings or even first cousins mating.  Not for most people the inbreeding of some of the former European royal families, where disappearing chins were the norm. Yet the amount of genetic diversity needed to produce healthy kids is pretty tiny. Just anyone outside the immediate family will do. Same culture? Tick. Same commitment to Western civilisation? Tick. Same belief in free speech and the role of women? Tick again. Just don’t sleep with your sister. So if that’s what were meant by all the propaganda on behalf of the joys of diversity, I think we could all get on board. (Well, I hesitate to speak for those hailing from Arkansas, or any readers from the Catlins south of Dunedin in New Zealand, but readers get the general point.)

On the other side of the equation, we know that the best fighting units are often drawn from the same geographical area.  Just look at how the British Army used to recruit soldiers. Closer bonds mean a greater willingness to put your life on the line for someone else. Or ask yourself whether you believe hiring ‘in the name of diversity’ has lowered physical standards when it comes to combat troops, firefighters going in to rescue people in burning homes, or cops on the beat. It sure seems to be the case that whenever physical strength is a core component of the job advocates for hiring women, start by promising that not a single standard will be lowered but we end up with – you guessed it – lower standards for women. Is that really a strength? Who do you want carrying you out of a burning house or getting into a fight on the street with the thug attacking you? (By the way, the biggest lie told by Hollywood in its movies is that some 55-kilogram woman can beat up a 90-kilogram robber or rapist. It’s a complete lie.)

It gets worse because the whole ‘diversity’ (often thrown in with ‘equity’ and ‘inclusion’) edifice is chock-full of contradictions.  We are sold the idea that proponents of diversity welcome everyone into their fold. It matters not what you bring to the table. But if you doubt the worth of diversity itself?  You are out.  Just look at the huge push for ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ in universities. You know what people have disappeared from our universities? Conservatives. The people who are sceptical about this anti-merit, ‘equality of outcome’ worldview. They aren’t hired. Promotions are harder. The data on this are astounding. A recent report looking at the political donations and survey answers to academics’ political views reported that there was not a single Trump Republican academic working at Yale. Not one! And remember the Voice campaign here? We have some 38 law schools. There were four legal academics in the entire country who publicly opposed the Voice and countless others in favour.

Diversity always and everywhere boils down to a diversity of skin pigmentation or type of reproductive organs, or other favoured inherited group characteristic. But it never, ever involves pushing for a diversity of political opinions and worldviews. And if you are opposed to, say, any affirmative action programs for women, Aborigines, non-heterosexuals, anyone thinking he was born in the wrong body (an incoherent claim, by the way), well, you are not welcome. Full stop.  And the facts in terms of who is employed and gets to the top show that to be blatantly true.

When some people now claim that working-class white boys are the most discriminated-against group that sure looks true to me if we’re talking about who gets special scholarships, who gets special support, who gets quiet, unspoken hiring help. (Hint:  Australian unis don’t have explicit quotas.  Nope. Rather they look at a dean’s department, measure the percentage of favoured – only favoured – groups in society at large and then in the department, and then make the dean’s performance review’s success depend on getting a match. The incentives are brutal but indirect. And all of this existed and got worse under nine years of Coalition governments. It’s hard to claim with a straight face that the Libs ever fight for anything, take on any vested interests, or repeal any disliked statutes. Hence, mes amis, the rise of One Nation.)

That is the truth of the matter. Diversity divas are divisive. They shun and exclude non-believers in the name of the insipid faith they are proselytising. Deep down they don’t believe in merit (save, ironically, their own because those imposing implicit quotas all, remarkably, believe that they themselves got their on merit). This whole diversity (and equity and inclusion) mantra is a disaster.