Andy Rutledge

Culture Fail:Meeting Your Quota

August 17, 2013 | By Andy Rutledge

You’d be surprised just how many folks disagree with this fact, but women have no more objective merit than men. Nor do men have any more objective merit than women. Likewise, members of one particular race have no more objective merit than members of another. In fact, to say otherwise is to engage in blatant sexism or racism.

And yet, members of the Cult of Diversity do say otherwise. According to their ideals, one’s skin color and gender are the primary indicators of objective quality and merit. For example, on August 15, Happy Cog President, Greg Storey wrote a blog post that in part and in whole described a sexist attack on human dignity. The relevant portion of the post begins in the third paragraph:

“In a few days, our newest designer will begin her first day. When Dana crosses the threshold, the Happy Cog payroll will be 50% female. Roughly four years ago, that percentage was at a measly 12%. By next Monday, we will have women well-represented [sic] within our design, development, project management, and marketing groups—two of them dominantly female: project management with a whopping 80% and design with a stellar 63%.”

Yes, a stellar percentage if I ever saw one! I mean…wait, what? I guess I have to wonder what exactly is stellar about a specific percentage of one gender’s distribution within an agency discipline? Why is that percentage stellar while, presumably, a different percentage would be not so good? Where exactly are the breakpoints for the relative values of gender distribution? And is it only an increasing feminine-gender percentage that holds merit? It’s all so confusing.

Perhaps Greg means that a company’s best purpose is not to hire the best people or create the best product, but instead to achieve the proper gender distribution. Or at least when you do, you should write a blog post about it (?).

The post continued:

“While getting to 50/50 hasn’t been a primary objective, it is one of a few themes we strive towards in our hiring practice…”

Why would a specific gender distribution be a theme that Happy Cog strives toward? If I understand Greg’s point correctly, there is some sort of merit in 50/50 gender distribution, but other than some false, cosmetic suggestion of “equality” I’m not sure I get what it is. And if this distribution merits sharing with the public, it then requires that one believe either A) that what really matters on that score is appearances, or B) that if gender distribution is something other than 50/50, the organization in question is failing on some moral grounds. If so, what would those be, exactly? In any case, neither of these options would seem to reflect well on Greg or Happy Cog.

Now I’m wondering what those other themes are that Happy Cog strives toward. In any event, the post’s next paragraph holds some specificity:

“You can’t make well-rounded, creative, and analytical decisions in the workplace without having a well-rounded team. Our industry, including Happy Cog, has a long way to go before diversity is fully realized, but, for now, I consider us very fortunate to have a studio staffed 50/50. This feels like a big win. As a shop owner, this is one of those milestones you never think you’ll be able to achieve, and, yet, here we are.”

And here we find the gist. This has all been about diversity; that objectively indefinable and subjectively misused and abused chameleon idea that ever serves to be at once a fearsome weapon and gentle panacea for leftist ideologues. Good for whatever ails society. If only we had fully realized diversity, all of society’s…hell, all of the world’s troubles would vanish like a fart in the wind. The problem is that “diversity” only ever seems to be about skin color, gender, and (sometimes) sexual orientation. It never seems to include people’s individual qualities: diversity of ideas, ideals, abilities, and genius. The popular cosmetic definition of diversity requires that you be blind to people as individuals and instead view us as categories. There’s the black category, the brown category, the white category, etc…and, of course, the male category and the female category…and any number of pseudogender sub categories as best serves the Diversity Agent whose will is being expressed or imposed at the time. In fact, to him or her, you don’t matter one goddamn bit as a person. You’re a MALE, WHITE *checks the box*.

Since Greg believes “Happy Cog has a long way to go before diversity is fully realized…” it is clear that he knows what fully realized diversity looks like. Presumably, this full realization includes some specific percentages for men, women, whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians…um, other kinds of people… (help me out here), right? But you'd have to ask him. Greg didn’t describe those precise percentages for racial distribution in his article. Oh, and I wonder if he also includes sexual orientation in his calculus. Hard to say. Again, you'd have to ask him. In fact, you should.

Nevertheless, Greg is pretty thrilled because his company’s 50/50 gender distribution is, according to him, both “fortunate” and “a big win.” One wonders what he and Happy Cog have won. I’ll speculate that their prize is a Statistical Compliance Achievement Award (certificate and plaque) from the Department of Equal-Gender Results, which is a division of the Mutual-&-Self-Congratulatory Society for Arbitrary Gender and Racial Quotas and Statistics. But that’s just a guess.

Anyhoo, his article then concludes with…

“It’s about damn time”.

About damn time for what, exactly? One wonders if he meant it was about damn time, A) that Happy Cog met their own arbitrary gender quota, or B) that Happy Cog’s gender distribution—at long last—allows for the development of equality-based products, or perhaps C) that he and Happy Cog could finally get the rest of the Cult of Diversity off their backs regarding that pesky gender-quota issue. The point is, according to Greg and Happy Cog, 50/50 gender distribution is objectively and qualitatively better than some other percentage. Why? Well, the answer only makes sense according to sexist bigotry, cosmetic-demographic diversity, and quota cowardice. I mean, compliance.

Pandering and Racism

The hits just keep coming. In the post’s comments, when questioned about the need to mention gender with regards to staff quality, Happy Cog C.E.O. Greg Hoy offered up the idea that gender pandering “matters” and he further suggested that when asked, “a female” would support this despicable notion (image below).

Gender quotas

I’m sure that as a white male, Greg has prodigious insight into what a female thinks is appropriate. Though I have many times been told by members of the Cult if Diversity that I’m incapable of such insight precisely because I’m a white male. Some guys have it, I suppose.

Also in the comments, the topic turned to racial quotas when Elliot Payne weighed in with a racist attack on human dignity, to which Happy Cog C.E.O Greg Hoy responded with an enthusiastic affirmation of this vile and condescending idea (image below).

Racial tokenism

So, in other words, people of color should take heart: Happy Cog appear to be ready to reevaluate their racial distribution and should be looking to fill color quotas any day now. That’s great news for token blacks and browns and yellows everywhere, yes? Just think; you could be the one to “add some color” to Happy Cog’s About page! When you contact them, be sure to mention your color.

Yep, it’s 1959 again, thanks to the Cult of Diversity and the leadership at Happy Cog. But I repeat myself.

Finally, in response to some or all of this fiasco, one Happy Cog designer chimed in with some poignant irony:

Please help, indeed.

An End To Tolerance

Sexism and racism yet exist today in part because of these sorts of demographic-quota-fueled ideals that poison our society. Likewise, and as you can see here, they poison our industry as well. They’re not just tolerated, they're encouraged. By sheeple.

It’s a simple fact that every design agency and indeed every business on earth has a staff gender and racial distribution that can be referenced by some percentage. But when you assign some arbitrary degree of merit or relative value to that percentage you reveal yourself as a sexist and racist bigot and a cog in the engine that works to destroy human dignity.

Diversity is a result, not a quota. It is about individuals and their ideas and their distinct abilities and qualities and individual genius. None of this can be accounted for by skin color or gender…and if you believe that it can then you are making qualitative evaluations rooted in racism and sexism. When you describe diversity according to these terms you not only engage in vile bigotry, you entirely miss the diversity you claim to seek and hold in high regard.

As organizations, we must eliminate and guard against these destructive habits and behaviors. As individuals, we must not tolerate them. I’m calling them out here. What are you doing about it? What will you do about it?

* * *