The Cult of Diversity

Every year, thousands of young British people head abroad on what have become known as ‘gap years’. These occur when school leavers choose to take a year out to travel around the world before starting university. They often go to Australia, South-East Asia, the United States, South America, as well as various other locations. 

Here is an apparently absurd question. Can anybody seriously imagine the governments of any of the countries visited by British teenagers to allow them to sit in judgement upon that country’s citizens in a court of law, ‌giving them the power to send people to prison? Of course not, the idea is utterly ridiculous. Incredibly, though, just such a scheme has now been launched in Britain; one which will give foreign teenagers the power to send British people to prison in their own country. We shall explore the details of this mad idea shortly. It is enough, for now, to observe that it has been initiated as part of the ceaseless modern quest in this country for ‘diversity and inclusion’.

All readers will of course be aware of the trend for both commercial companies and public bodies such as the police force and fire brigade to announce that they hope to make their enterprises more ‘diverse and inclusive’. A popular phrase used in connection with this endeavour is that the intention is ‘to reflect the community which we serve’. On the face of it, this sounds a worthy enough aspiration, but a little closer examination soon reveals that a flaw in logic lies at the heart of such declarations. Such efforts are commonly known as category errors. 

Perhaps a little explanation might not come amiss. Some qualities and ways of behaving are unreservedly good and desirable, and their endorsement requires no justification. For instance, if I say that the company for which I work is in favour of more kindness and compassion in the workplace and will try to increase such things, that is so obviously a worthwhile aim that we are all able to endorse without hesitation. Other courses of action, though, might be good or bad. We don’t know until further explanation is forthcoming. Take the case of an organisation that announces redundancies; this might be a good thing for the company if it makes it leaner and more able to survive, but if it is just to increase the wealth of the managing director, then these redundancies are a bad thing. We can’t say until we have more information.

So it is that diversity and inclusion are presented as though they were in the first of the categories in the previous paragraph; that is to say an unqualified good. Of course, it is in fact the case that this is not at once apparent, and so they should rather be placed in the second category, that of things which might be good or bad, and about which we need further information before we can come to a decision. In short, this is a category error; diversity and inclusion being presented as a good thing, when really we cannot tell if this is so without knowing more about the specific circumstances.

All of this brings us back to the idea of foreign teenagers in Britain being given the power to send British citizens to prison. This scheme is actually in operation, and it too is being justified on the grounds of diversity and inclusion. On January 24th of this year, a press release issued by the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts and Tribunal Service and headed ‘Magistrate recruitment campaign launched’ explained that “People from all walks of life are being urged to become magistrates in an unprecedented recruitment drive launched today.” It appeared that 4,000 magistrates were needed, and the aim was to recruit them from a wider pool than just middle-aged, middle-class people. 

The press release described what kind of people were being sought: “from teachers to bricklayers, to stay-at-home mums, and any individuals who can display reason and sound judgement.” Then came those fatal words, a commitment “to make the magistracy more representative of the communities it serves.” This was followed by a rather surprising statement. It seems that this campaign “will specifically target younger people—with anyone over 18 encouraged to apply online.” It is probably fair to assume that very few readers were aware that anybody would think it a wise or prudent move to give teenagers the power to send anybody to prison. But perhaps this is merely theoretical? It may be possible for a teenager to sit in this capacity, but surely it does not really happen? In fact, the first teenager was appointed as a magistrate in Britain as long ago as 2006.

Many of us might think that when such a serious matter as the administration of justice is being considered, particularly with all the consequences which might ensue from a criminal conviction, from being unable to work with children to spending time in prison, that mature adults with some experience of the world would be needed. This is the case in many countries and, until relatively recently, it was also the case in Britain. In the same way, some professions might better equip a person for being able to judge an individual accused of wrongdoing. In Ghana, for instance, prospective magistrates are required to have a law degree. Surely, a middle-aged teacher or solicitor would be a better person for such a responsible position than an 18-year-old bricklayer? At the very least, one would expect those who are chosen to be magistrates to be citizens of this country. But no, not a bit of it. Looking at the Lord Chancellor’s directions on who may or may not be a magistrate, we find that “British nationality is not a requirement.” Those becoming magistrates might be required to take an oath of allegiance to the Crown, but anybody of any nationality may be appointed as a magistrate from their eighteenth birthday onwards. There is no mention of fluency in English as a requirement.

Because diversity is viewed as an unqualified good, we are bound to reach a position of this sort not only when recruiting magistrates, but in a hundred other aspects of British life. Our common sense might tell us that it would be better to have magistrates who were citizens of this country; older people with good educations, and perhaps professional backgrounds. Unfortunately, when this instinctive feeling clashes with a dogma such as the supposed need that any body of people should ‘reflect the community’, then there is no contest. The quest for inclusiveness will surely win every time. This is of course one of the difficulties encountered when pragmatism is ditched in favour of idealism. Ask precisely why an 18-year-old foreign bricklayer should make as desirable a magistrate as a 45-year-old British solicitor and the proponents of such a mad scheme will only be able to repeat the mantra of diversity and inclusion. 

This craze has long taken hold in some other institutions such as the police. At one time, police forces in Britain had strict rules about the height and gender of recruits. This made sense: a six-foot-tall man is more likely to be able to deal with a fight after the closing of public houses on a Friday night than a girl who is a foot shorter. Of course, once the idea of diversity and inclusion took hold, then it was as plain as a pikestaff that restrictions relating to height would militate against not only female recruits but also those of Bangladeshi origin. Those from that country tend to be shorter on average than British people. So it was that once again, common sense was abandoned in favour of the new ideology. 

A perfect modern example of this mindless drive towards diversity and inclusion may be seen in a document produced by Britain’s national broadcasting service. In 2021, the Director-General of the BBCannounced that “we must—from top to bottom—represent the audiences we serve … We have made some big improvements, but we want and need to go further.” Again, we see that familiar mantra. In the BBC, this aim is known as the 50:20:12 strategy: shorthand for the ambition to ensure that 50 per cent of staff are women, 20 per cent are black, Asian, or another minority, and 12 per cent are disabled.

Once more, we ask ourselves why this might be considered a laudable aim. After all, women and men often prefer different kinds of jobs. There is nothing to prevent women from applying for work emptying dustbins from private homes, and there are many of them physically capable of such work. Few wish to do it though. Do any readers think that councils should try to make sure that half the people on the bins are women? No? Why not? Why is this job different from working at the BBC? What about being in a mountain rescue team or working as a professor at some university? Should 12 per cent of such jobs be given to disabled people? Would it be a good or even sensible aim? If not, why not?

What is slightly disturbing is that few people today feel able even to ask such questions. The very words diversity and inclusion now have the effect of stifling conversation or criticism because those who are not sure about the soundness of the ideology behind it all do not wish to come across as racist, sexist, or as though they have a prejudice against disabled people. Should premier league football teams try to reflect the community they serve and, like the BBC, aim to ensure that 12 per cent of their players are disabled? Why not? Most people are very much opposed to any sort of prejudice acting against women, disabled people, or ethnic minorities, but that is an entirely different thing from saying that we should take active steps to rig recruitment procedures and the criteria for jobs so that we give preference to any of these categories.

Then again, If we really want diversity, then what about lazy and dishonest people? Should we discriminate against them? Would it be right to exclude them? After all, there are many such people in the community. This sounds funny of course, but there really is a debate going on about it in some quarters, with very right-on people arguing that criminals should not be excluded, even from jobs where honesty is absolutely vital. A report issued a few weeks ago revealed that in the last two years, London’s Metropolitan Police has recruited over 100 people with criminal records. This is something which was absolutely prohibited at one time, but it is now felt that a blanket ban was too harsh on criminals who might wish to become police officers. What sort of offences are we talking about which were overlooked in the quest for diversity? They included handling stolen goods, drunk driving, possession of controlled drugs, assault, and theft. I realise that this sounds as though I have made it up. Seriously, to make sure that the police are diverse, they really are employing thieves. 

I doubt that many people object to the idea of diversity as such. As a general principle, there can be nothing wrong with attempting to ensure that one does not needlessly discriminate against any class of people. The present trend though has gone far beyond this and the quest for diversity and inclusion has come to be an end in itself; a goal to be pursued even when prudence and common sense advise caution. For a police force to employ thieves, for fear of being seen to discriminate against them, is bizarre. To engage foreign teenagers to judge and perhaps send people in this country to prison is of a piece with this; an act of folly which flows quite logically from the idea that diversity is an unqualified good in all cases and under any circumstances.