Delingpole: Bestselling Author Fired for Mocking Publisher’s Diversity Policy

James Delingpole 13 Jun 2018 @ Brietbart

Publishing giant Penguin Random House has announced that its authors are no longer to be chosen on literary merit but according to a politically correct quota system “taking into account ethnicity, gender, sexuality, social mobility and disability”.

This is mad, stupid, and insulting. But not nearly as mad, stupid, and insulting as the decision by the Mslexia Short Story Prize, a literary competition for women authors, to sack one of its judges Lionel Shriver as a punishment for daring to criticise the new policy.

Shriver (who, despite her misleading first name, is a woman) is the American-born, UK-resident novelist best known for her bestseller We Need To Talk About Kevin.

She also has a column in the Spectator which this week she used to mock Penguin Random House’s new diversity policy.

It begins:

I’d been suffering under the misguided illusion that the purpose of mainstream publishers like Penguin Random House was to sell and promote fine writing. A colleague’s forwarded email has set me straight. Sent to a literary agent, presumably this letter was also fired off to the agents of the entire Penguin Random House stable. The email cites the publisher’s ‘new company-wide goal’: for ‘both our new hires and the authors we acquire to reflect UK society by 2025.’ (Gotta love that shouty boldface.) ‘This means we want our authors and new colleagues to reflect the UK population taking into account ethnicity, gender, sexuality, social mobility and disability.’ The email proudly proclaims that the company has removed ‘the need for a university degree from nearly all our jobs’ — which, if my manuscript were being copy-edited and proof-read by folks whose university-educated predecessors already exhibited horrifyingly weak grammar and punctuation, I would find alarming.

Then she really gets going:

Drunk on virtue, Penguin Random House no longer regards the company’s raison d’être as the acquisition and dissemination of good books. Rather, the organisation aims to mirror the percentages of minorities in the UK population with statistical precision. Thus from now until 2025, literary excellence will be secondary to ticking all those ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual preference and crap-education boxes. We can safely infer from that email that if an agent submits a manuscript written by a gay transgender Caribbean who dropped out of school at seven and powers around town on a mobility scooter, it will be published, whether or not said manuscript is an incoherent, tedious, meandering and insensible pile of mixed-paper recycling. Good luck with that business model. Publishers may eschew standards, but readers will still have some.

Eminently sensible stuff. But the diversity police didn’t like it.

In another blast at Shriver in the Independent (formerly a newspaper), an “LBGT screenwriter and filmmaker” called Amrou Al-Kadhi – who specialises “in avant-garde attempts to queer mainstream institutions” – explains why choosing authors on literary merit is homophobic, disablist, sexist, and racist.

How we are taught to judge “good work” is inextricably rooted in the structures of social and racial privilege. Unconscious biases sit at the heart of invisible prejudices, and when we have been fed on a culture defined by the privileged, it leads to a cultural taste of works from the privileged – and so the vicious cycle perpetuates.

Shriver seems to believe that there is some sort of abstract ideal of good-quality writing, but this is a complete and utter fallacy dripping with privilege. This “ideal” no doubt upholds writing that has benefited from a high-quality education, and with this comes the perils of class and racial privilege.

This is the kind of post-modernist, neo-Marxist gobbledegook they teach you at Cambridge (where Amrou Al-Khadi studied). It is of a piece with the campaign being conducted by woke students at Cambridge (Oxford too, unfortunately) to “decolonise” the curriculum, by replacing dead, white male philosophers, writers, historically significant talents you’ve heard of with second-, third-, and fourth-raters you haven’t heard of but who fit the right diversity profile.

One of the many problems with choosing your talent on criteria other than talent is that the people you end up with aren’t necessarily that talented.

Consider as Exhibit A, this open letter to Shriver, purportedly written by the “inaugural cohort of writers from the Penguin Random House WriteNow scheme”.

Shriver seems to view diversity and quality as mutually exclusive categories. We are compelled to ask: does she truly believe that diverse writers are incapable of penning good books? That women of colour are incapable of working editorially? That marketing is a job limited to individuals who identify as cis, white and straight? Does she believe that someone with a disability, or from a working-class background, does not have what it takes to grasp the concepts of plot, dialogue and use of language? If she truly does believe these things, we ought to be having a very different conversation.

That word “seems” is carrying an awful lot of freight.

The letter accuses Shriver of something she never actually said. Besides being sloppy, unobservant, ungenerous, and intellectually dishonest, the letter is also smug, virtue-signalling, self-righteous, pompous, worthy, hectoring, patronising, tendentious, dull, and an absolute torture to read.

If the dreary letter is in any way representative of the stuff we can expect in future from Penguin Random House’s new list of diversity-compliant authors, it doesn’t augur terribly well for their bottom line. The company is co-owned by Bertelsmann (75 percent) and Pearson (25 percent). Glad I don’t own any shares in either…

 

Thomas Sowell quotations on ‘diversity’ and a video of his Francis Boyer lecture at an AEI event in 1990

By Carpe Diem October 10, 2017 This appeared here

Here are seven quotes from Thomas Sowell on one of his favorite topics — “diversity” — and a bonus video of Sowell speaking at an American Enterprise Institute event in 1990.
 
1. Demographic “diversity” is a notion often defended with fervor but seldom with facts.

2. What are the alleged “compelling” benefits of “diversity“? They are as invisible as the proverbial emperor’s new clothes. Yet everyone has to pretend to believe in those benefits, as they pretended to admire the naked emperor’s wardrobe.

3. If there is ever a contest for words that substitute for thought, “diversity” should be recognized as the undisputed world champion. You don’t need a speck of evidence, or a single step of logic, when you rhapsodize about the supposed benefits of diversity. The very idea of testing this wonderful, magical word against something as ugly as reality seems almost sordid.

4. Despite the fervor with which demographic ‘‘diversity’’ is proclaimed as a prime virtue — without a speck of evidence as to its supposed benefits — diversity of ideas gets no such respect.

5. Nothing so epitomizes the politically correct gullibility of our times as the magic word “diversity.” The wonders of diversity are proclaimed from the media, extolled in the academy and confirmed in the august chambers of the Supreme Court of the United States. But have you ever seen one speck of hard evidence to support the lofty claims?

6. “Diversity” has become one of the most often used words of our time– and a word almost never defined. Diversity is invoked in discussions of everything from employment policy to curriculum reform and from entertainment to politics. Nor is the word merely a description of the long-known fact that the American population is made up of people from many countries, many races, and many cultural backgrounds. All that was well known long before the word “diversity” became an insistent part of our vocabulary, an invocation, an imperative, or a bludgeon in ideological conflicts.

7. If there is any place in the Guinness Book of World Records for words repeated the most often, over the most years, without one speck of evidence, “diversity” should be a prime candidate.

8. Bonus Video: In 1990, Thomas Sowell was honored as the recipient of the American Enterprise Institute’s Francis Boyer Award and gave a lecture titled “Cultural Diversity: A World View” as part of the event in his honor. Dr. Sowell’s talk starts at about 15:00 in the video below. Other recipients of AEI’s Francis Boyer Award from 1977 to 2002 include Gerald Ford, Henry Kissinger, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Paul Volcker, Ronald Reagan, Alan Greenspan, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, George Will and Michael Novak.

A Look At The Pipeline For Future "Diverse" Tech Workers, Professionals And Corporate Executives

September 11, 2021/ Francis Menton @ Manhattan Contrarian

As we have seen, corporate American has now fully bought in to the mantra that “any racial disparities are the result of racist policies.” See Friday’s post focusing on Google for one example of a company whose “antiracist” training materials use just that language. Essentially every major institution in the country — corporations, professional firms, universities, you name it — is on a mission to get the percentage of minorities in high-paying technical, professional and executive positions up to the percentage that those minorities represent of the population as a whole. That goal particularly applies to African Americans.

Yet despite all the pledges and commitments, change occurs at a glacial pace. As Friday’s post reported, the likes of Googe and Facebook, despite seemingly having adopted “diversity and inclusion” as the single most important focus of their operations, have only moved the ratios of black “tech” workers and executives by about a percentage point or two over eight years of reporting data. At Apple, the percentage of black “tech” workers has actually gone down by 2% since 2016. In my own field of major law firms, some fifty years of affirmative action have only brought the percentage of black partners overall to about 2-3%.

Perhaps there is a problem that the pipeline is just not producing a sufficient pool of potential candidates for all major institutions to hire 13% blacks into all high-ranking positions at the same time. The pipeline I’m talking about is the nation’s K-12 schools. Among all of our societal institutions, those K-12 schools are the ones most firmly in the control of the progressive left. Whether it be the administrators, the teachers unions, or the teachers themselves, these are the people who most constantly vociferously accuse the rest of us of being “racists” and “white supremacists.” (Note that the term “white supremacist,” as used by the progressive left, is by no means limited to people of white ethnicity, as California gubernatorial candidate Larry Elder has recently learned.). Surely then, of all institutions, the the very holy and pious K-12 schools have fixed racism by now.

To get an idea how the K-12 schools are doing in fixing racism, let’s look at some data from what’s called the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Since many readers may be unfamiliar with NAEP, let me give some background. NAEP is a Congressionally-sponsored project, administered by the federal Department of Education. The NAEP people call themselves the “nation’s report card.” Supposedly, the goal is to get an idea whether schools in a city or state, or in the nation as a whole, are performing better or worse over time. These are national tests given every two years to a sample of kids in the fourth and eighth grades. The sample is relatively small (e.g., only about 3000 in New York State). The test is not “high-stakes”: no results are reported to individual students, and no life consequences, such as admission to selective schools, depend on the outcome.

NAEP has a level they call “proficient,” which they define as “demonstrat[ing] solid academic performance and competency over challenging subject matter.” If that definition seems unspecific, it may help to learn that when you look at their data nationwide, roughly half the test takers on any given test score at or above the “proficient” level. In other words, although they don’t call it that, it is roughly the mean. For each test administration, results are reported in two categories, math and reading.

Most of the NAEP data is reported only on a state level. However, beginning in 2001 they started specifically testing certain large urban districts in a program called the “Trial Urban District Assessment” or TUDA. The TUDA program started with only 6 districts, but gradually has expanded until it reached 27 in the 2017 and 2019 administrations of the NAEP tests. (The 2021 results have not yet been released.). The cities that are now part of the TUDA include many to most of the large and troubled urban school districts in the country. Among the cities included are New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Baltimore, Washington DC, Atlanta, Memphis and Houston.

It turns out that if you dig deep enough through the NAEP website, you can find data for what percentage of the black students scored at or above the “proficient” level in each of these districts and for each of math and reading. So let’s collect some of those data. Remember that overall approximately 50% of the test takers score at or above the “proficient” level. The following data are for eighth grade students designated by NAEP itself as “black,” in the most recent (2019) administration of the test

• New York City: 14% proficient in math (compared to 46% for whites); 14% proficient in reading (again compared to 46% for whites).  
• Los Angeles: 8% proficient in math (compared to 37% for whites); 9% proficient in reading (compared to 41% for whites). 
• Chicago: 15% proficient in math (compared to 56% for whites); 16% proficient in reading (compared to 55% for whites). 
• Detroit: 4% proficient in math (no figure given for whites, presumably because there aren’t enough whites in the school system to get a meaningful result); 5% proficient in reading (again, no figure given for whites) 
• Cleveland: 4% proficient in math (compared to 25% for whites); 10% proficient in reading (compared to 23% for whites). 
• Baltimore: 6% proficient in math (compared to 32% for whites); 10% proficient in reading (compared to 48% for whites).

You get the picture. Note that these are not the results of IQ or “intelligence” tests, but rather are tests of actual learning or achievement. Really, the scores are as much a measure of the success (or failure) of the schools in teaching the kids as they are a measure of the kids themselves.

These are the young people who supposedly will be ready to go to college in 2023, and to come out into starter tech jobs and corporate training programs and law schools in 2027. How many of the 85-96% of them who scored below “proficient” in reading and math in 8th grade are really going turn it around sufficiently to be able to move into these high-end jobs by their early 20s?

The simple truth is that without an education system that produces young black people at an equivalent educational level to young people of other ethnicities, it is never going to be possible for corporate America to get to universal 13% representation of blacks among executives, tech workers, lawyers, doctors, and so forth. As I said in Friday’s post, I would have some sympathy for them if they just had some humility and stopped accusing the rest of us of being racists and white supremacists. For the so-called “educators” in these big-city schools, who run failure factories year after year with no accountability, while fighting any and all potential competition, I have no sympathy at all.

 

Diversity Without Accomplishment is Philosophy Without Form and Incompetence Without Consequence

What are the alleged “compelling” benefits of “diversity“? They are as invisible as the proverbial emperor’s new clothes. Yet everyone has to pretend to believe in those benefits, as they pretended to admire the naked emperor’s wardrobe. - Thomas Sowell

If Diversity is the Answer, What's the Question? Part I

"If there is ever a contest for words that substitute for thought, “diversity” should be recognized as the undisputed world champion. You don’t need a speck of evidence, or a single step of logic, when you rhapsodize about the supposed benefits of diversity. The very idea of testing this wonderful, magical word against something as ugly as reality seems almost sordid." Thomas Sowell

By Rich Kozlovich

One of the major problems with understanding what activists are up to is how they've high jacked language.  They take words that are easily understood, twist them and misapply them.   Words such as diversity.  For most Americans of my generation we understood that American diversity meant we had a large variety of people living in America from all over the world.  All contributing to the American culture, the American identity and the American economy.  All working to have the American dream and become a united people with the added benefits of what different cultures contributed.

That's not what leftists mean when they use the word diversity.  Their goal is to destroy any concept of an American culture, an American identity, the American economy, overturn the Constitution, and destroy any idea of American unity unless it's being unified under a socialist dictatorial regime.  Once that happens....Oh there will be unity all right, but as in all the failed leftist regimes of history that have infested the world, they will insist in unity of thought, and those thoughts will be disastrous.

That's history and that history is incontestable, and now government, society, corporations and trade associations are falling into their trap. Embracing unending failure is insanity!

I've been outraged ever since I received this e-mail from NPMA saying:

We’ve all been struck silent for the past ten days struggling with the scenes playing out over television and computer screens everywhere. But, it’s clear that now is not the time for silence. It’s the time to find our voices and join them together to honor those who have been wronged and to forge a better, united future standing against racism and injustice.

To our Black members, the Black community, your families and those of you who have experienced inherent racism, NPMA stands with you. We recognize that your experiences are unique and we all have much to learn. Please know that we are committed to doing just that. We are here to listen, to learn, to improve and to contribute where it makes sense.

Given the critical need to focus on this important issue, we will be diligent in our commitment to shine a renewed spotlight on diversity, inclusion and equality during our upcoming meetings as part of every agenda. In addition, we are planning for a Diversity Forum at Pestworld, and we hope you will join us in the discussion there. Every voice must be heard.

We all need to be committed to learning more about how we can end racism.

What exactly does that mean? What exactly does all this entail?  Why exactly is this so critical, and if this is so critical, why didn't NPMA notice it before insane misfits started destroying the nation?

And as for "every voice must be heard":  Really?  I guess we'll see about that!

As I read this I wondered who is the leftist ideologue at NPMA who wrote this?   A writer who gives the impression they never read a history book, only watch TV news, and only read the New York Times and other corrupt rags of similar ilk.  

Also I wonder if they ever read a dictionary.  "Inherent" racism.  Really?  Did anyone look up the word inherent before sending out this piece of clabber, especially to an industry that has been the most exemplary and accepting industry in the world.  Our industry has accepted all people's regardless of race, gender or sexual preference, which I will be covering in this continuing series of articles dealing with the cancer of leftism and their definition of diversity and it's goals.  

Well, at 74, I'm soon to be gone, but in the meanwhile, I'm not going quietly into the night.  I love this industry and I will not allow anyone, including bureaucrats, activists, or fellow travelers within the industry to degrade who and what we are, and what we have been.

It would appear the NPMA has decided to descend into the labyrinth world of leftist social engineering, which is really rich, since once upon a time there was an attempt to  restrict me from posting on the Open Forum because of my views, which only involved issues of business, economics, pesticide issues, regulations, and our needs as an industry.  I did not involve social engineering issues.  Well, it would appear the NPMA is now shredding their own rules - I will follow that lead. 

If we're going to do social issues, domestic and international, I have massive files, and between 700 and 800 of my own commentaries on social issues, domestic politics, history and geopolitics.  Articles that explain things like why N. Korea won't start WWIII,  Why is a paper tiger socially, economically, demographically and militarily.   Why the will be gone before the end of this decade.  Why Trump's are a good move for America economically and geopolitically at this point in time because we've come to the end of the

I have files on every social issue humanity has faced for thousands of years.  I have files on, the civil war, Johnson's Great Society programs, FDR's new deal, the Great Depression, and the infiltration of communist spies in his administration, Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt's progressive view that the Constitution is an impediment to human progress, and in my computer I have saved massive files on Global Warming, along with 's, and I will happily share all of that on a daily basis with our membership on the Open Forum.

If there are no rules, then there are no rules!

Friends don't always see reality the same light, as an example, at Legislative Day one year a friend once said to me, (with a more than small hint of accusatory disdain I might add), "you thrive on confrontation".  Snarkily, I said, "Yes I do!"   What I didn't explain, because I felt I didn't have to is, I don't do confrontation for confrontation's sake.  I believe in confrontation when there's something worth confronting.  I believe there are times that someone needs to stand up and say what needs to be said, and then be prepared to take the heat.  I am prepared!
  

 I've stored source articles for my commentaries on this issue, and here they are to share with you:

• The 'Diversity' Fraud 
• Diversity and Inclusion Insanity
• Cult Programming in Seattle 
• The American Soviet Mentality - Collective demonization invades our culture 
• How a Twitter Mob Derailed an Immigrant Female Author’s Budding Career
• What ‘Systemic Liberalism’ Has Wrought 
• The Problem with Abstract Concepts
• Jews fight back against de Blasio's continued persecution 
• Whom are you going to call?
• The Floyd Riots Mark a Century of Communist Agitation
• Anti-police madness metastasizes as SF mayor plans to send in social workers in their place
•  Seattle’s cowardly capitulation contrasts with 4 other cities putting down attempts to establish ’autonomous zones’
•  Business departs the inner cities
• Serial kneeling of America 
• The plight of blacks who believe in America’s promise - 
• We Didn’t Fight for a Marxist America  
• There was a dumpster fire in the autonomous zone so citizens of the CHAZ called the Seattle fire department What a perfect metaphor
• CHAZ offers useful insights into the practical realities of revolutionary communes - 
• Nashville autonomous zone 'will not be tolerated,' Tennessee governor warns amid threat
• Entire Florida city's SWAT team resigns after police chief kneels with protesters 
• Scott Adams has had a brilliant insight about the demand for reparations 
• The futility of reparations
• It's not just policing that Black Lives Matter wants to change
• The irony of kneeling during the National Anthem
• Defund the police: Wrong target, right idea
• Three Species of Protesters
• Devolution to Revolution: An Already Demoralized U.S. is Now Being Destabilized
• The Problem with George Will
• America’s New Caste System?
• Where Black Lives Don't Matter
• Race Isn’t Going Away 
• What If Police Officers Go on Strike?
• Why Don’t These #BlackLivesMatter?
• The Wound to Our Social Order Is Deep and Pervasive
• Democrat Cities: Fourth-World Scourges
• White America's Alleged Inner Racist
• Glenn Loury: 'We're Being Swept Along by Hysteria' About Racism in America
• TheMob’s Support For Rayshard Brooks Exposes Them For The Race-Baiting Hypocrites They Are

Okay, so you're all in for diversity, right?  Tell me, when was the last time you had dinner with a street bum at your home.  How many?  And how often?