Conservative critics of "diversity" policies have argued for years that the word is simply a euphemism for a policy of quotas -- i.e., favoritism on the basis of sex or race -- whose beneficiaries receive jobs or opportunities for which they are otherwise unqualified. Do defenders of diversity secretly agree?
Consider a remarkable passage in a May 8 Washington Post article about the "diversity" of corporate boards of Washington-area Internet companies. Reporter Jerry Knight notes that Franklin Raines, the chairman of Fannie Mae, and Colin Powell both serve on the board of America Online. But AOL, according to Knight, doesn't deserve any political points for naming two black men to its board, because the men are "too prestigious to be considered representatives of racial diversity." Indeed, writes Knight, "that is true of the people of color who serve on the boards of most other local Internet companies."
So the very fact that people are eminently well qualified to serve on corporate boards ipso facto means they don't count as "diversity" appointments? THE SCRAPBOOK thinks there's an ugly premise at work here, though maybe it's just the resurfacing of Nebraska senator Roman Hruska's famous dictum that the mediocre, too, "are entitled to a little representation."