Dear Editor,

Currently there is a major push by some to achieve what they call diversity at the workplace.

I support these efforts in principle; however, I recognise that the inclusion of various types of people have been a feature of workplaces for many years. Even a nodding acquaintance with any organisation is enough to make anyone realise that diversity is present in relation to gender, abilities, race, personalities, age, etc.

What is new about this diversity push is its inherently discriminatory nature and narrow focus, which is aimed at increasing the number of a certain group at the workplace based on race, sexual orientation, and gender. But this focus needs to be expanded in practice to include those who are obese, those with physical impairments, and people over 65 years of age.

Interestingly, politicians in Western countries have led the way in diversity as seen in the age, race, and gender of those who hold political office. But has this diversity benefited their citizens? I don’t think so. Unwittingly, many of them have demonstrated that when it comes to doing a job, competence is key and not representation based on gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation.

In my view diversity is a subset of the idiom “Variety is the spice of life.” Both cover the idea that a diverse group of people interacting at the workplace will lead to greater efficiency and effectiveness. Ironically, while they share similar goals, in part, the aforementioned old-time idiom is more inclusive as it includes both people and things, whereas the modern/current diversity goal is less inclusive with its narrow focus on certain characteristics of people — race, religion, and gender. Note, this modern inclusive goal excludes as its focus critical workplace needs like intelligence, innovativeness, leadership skills, reliability, and competence.

This leads me to ask a few questions. Is it prudent to hire or retain the services of an incompetent person in order to meet diversity and inclusion goals? Should the coach of a professional football team select a team based on ability, or should it be diversity? If team selection is based on ability, then why should other businesses operate differently?

Frankly speaking, my personal interest when dealing with any business is to get good products and services. I value competence and good customer service over diversity. It explains why, if my vehicle needs to be serviced, I would choose a mechanic of my own race who has a good reputation of service over one who is of a different race and has a poor reputation. In like manner, given that I value my life, I would unhesitatingly choose to go to a doctor with a good reputation of competence — even if the doctor has a different sexual orientation than my own — over one who shares my sexual orientation but has a poor reputation.

Clearly, I support the efforts to achieve more diversity and inclusion in the workplace; however, getting a job should be based on one’s assessed ability to perform competently and ethically and fit into an organisation’s culture. Where there is no fit, there shall be problems.

So any business that sees growth and the protection of owners’ interests as its priority should hire staff based on ability and not this modern definition of diversity. Perhaps those pushing the new diversity agenda should contemplate the implications of the saying “Birds of a feather flock together.”Hugh Beckford

hugh_beckford@yahoo.com