Prof. Lynch on Reverse Discrimination and Diversity

From The Human Resource Executive Online:

"to date, there has been no social science or evidence to prove that diverse organizations are actually better performing, more creative and more productive.

Should that information become available, he [Lynch] says, "diversity and HR professionals will have a much easier time convincing CEOs" -- and courts of law -- "that diversity is a viable business imperative and not just a case of representation and quotas," the latter of which would make a company ripe for reverse-discrimination charges.

Lynch, author of The Diversity Machine: The Drive to Change the "White Male Workplace" and Invisible Victims: White Males and the Crisis of Affirmative Action, says he has seen an increase in successful white-male reverse-discrimination suits in the United States, though they are still rare."

Hear that Scripps College? Productivity, creativity and performance of an entity are not affected by the racial breakup of their employees. What a shocker. Who would have thought that individual talents and competence levels are more important than race or gender?

But let's assume that a company's performance does in fact improve with a more diverse workforce. Does that justify government intrusion into private entities? Should the government force an entity to become more efficient, productive and creative? In a legal dispute, it would certainly weaken the corporation's argument, but theoretically the private entity has no obligation to run at peak efficiency level, as mandated by the government. If that were true, Pomona would have to cap their expenditure on Smith Campus Center at a mere $33.1m.

Of course, we can be sure that diversity does not improve company performance. If this assumption was true, there would be an in-built economic incentive to have a diverse workforce.