Like any and every leftist program, the "diversity" push not only doesn't do anything positive, it has detrimental effects

In the course of a Townhall column on Starbucks puking all over itself to prove that it's not a bigoted organization, Carl Horowitz presents some findings about this whole "diversity" enterprise and demonstrates that it actually harms an organization's bottom line, as well as its cohesiveness:

Adding insult to injury is the cost. A study by MIT’s Sloan School of Management estimated that U.S. corporations in 2015 spent about $8 billion on “diversity and inclusion” programs. That’s equivalent to the total revenue of the 350th largest company in the Fortune 500. “The diversity industry is built on sand,” remarks Sloan School professor Thomas Kochan. “The business case rhetoric for diversity is simply naïve and overdone. There are no strong positive or negative effects of gender or racial diversity on business performance,” he adds.

If anything, “diversity” undermines teamwork – and to the detriment of intended beneficiaries. Harvard sociologist Frank Dobbin, after delving into the records of various companies, concluded that diversity training reduces the likelihood of black men and white women finding work. Three situations in particular were recipes for failure: when diversity is mandatory; when it mentions the law; and when it is specific to managers. About 75 percent of the companies with diversity training programs fell into at least one of these categories.

Such outcomes are understandable. Nobody wants to work where a stray gesture could trigger a lawsuit alleging racism or sexual harassment. Even executives with a stake in the present system admit as much. In a report several years ago to the Academy of Management Learning & Education, diversity chieftains Rohini Anand (Sodexo) and Mary-Frances Winters (The Winters Group) noted: 

Many (employees) interpreted the key learning point as having to walk on eggshells around women and minorities – choosing words carefully so as not to offend. Some surmised that it meant white men were villains, still others assumed that they would lose their jobs to minorities and women, while others concluded that women and minorities were simply too sensitive.

Diversity enforcers typically respond that the system may have flaws but is sound in principle. Thus, their cure is more of the same. This is especially the case when a company faces accusations from an “offended” person or organization. Starbucks is far from the only company that folds. This March, Swedish-based clothing retailer H&M, stung by charges that a children’s hoodie for sale was “racist,” hired a company insider, Annie Wu, to lead a new global diversity team. And Google, which spent $114 million on diversity programs in 2014, has ramped up unconscious bias training after one of its engineers, James Damore, criticized the company last August for its diversity policies. Google fired Damore, who in turn sued the company for discrimination and wrongful termination.   

And here's the thing: per Damore losing his job, where is it safe, beyond conservative websites, to loudly and forthrightly proclaim the obvious? Can you, in any social situation (where those present constitute a presumably "diverse" array of people, from an ideological standpoint), say, "The whole diversity push is about guilt-mongering, trying to make white, straight Christian males into a supposedly meaningful demographic classification and cast aspersions on it. It's totalitarian and economically wasteful." There would be no more effective way to play the skunk at the garden party. You'd immediately exclude yourself from a number of boards and committees in your community on which you might want to serve. You could find yourself the subject of vituperative letters to the editor of your local newspaper.

So the question becomes, does that stop you?

Consider what's at stake. This is war, and there will be no armistice conference. Either the good guys or the bad guys will win.