Sam’s Club CEO Rosalind Brewer “is being accused of discriminating against white men following a CNN interview where she discussed the importance of workforce diversity”:
Brewer was asked by the interviewer how she promotes diversity within her company.
“It has to start with top leadership,” Brewer said. “My executive team is very diverse and I make that a priority. I demand it within my team.”
She said she mentors women inside and outside of her company, as well, and also encourages Sam’s Club’s partners to hire a more diverse workforce. . . .
“Just today we met with a supplier and the entire other side of the table was all Caucasian males. That was interesting. I decided not to talk about it directly with [the supplier’s] folks in the room because there were actually no female, like, levels down. So I’m going to place a call to him.”
Critics are claiming that Brewer’s remarks are evidence that she advocates against employing and hiring white men — even though four of the eight people on her executive team are white men. Some customers are now accusing Brewer of being “racist” toward white men and are threatening to boycott Sam’s Club.
You can read the whole thing, and you can also read Steve Berman’s commentary at Red State, which begins: “Nobody argues against the fact that there needs to be diversity at the top of large companies, but . . .”
Is it a “fact” that “diversity at the top” is a “need”? I am skeptical. Why should anyone care whether the executive suite is “diverse”? Are the Japanese executives at Toyota worried? And why does Steve Berman limit this “diversity” requirement to “large companies”?
How large does a company have to be before the “need” for “diversity at the top” becomes a “fact”? If a family of Mexican immigrants opens a taco stand, should they be required to hire a Korean assistant manager for the sake of “diversity”? Does anyone complain there are “too many” Italians working at the pizza restaurant?
Businesses exist for exactly one reason, to make profit. Anything that contributes to the goal of making profit is good, and anything that distracts from that goal is bad. Period.
Companies do not exist for the sake for the employees. Nobody has a “right” to a job at any company, because if the company does not make profit, the company will go bankrupt and then everybody will be unemployed. Your employment is therefore a function of your daily contributions to the goal of making profit.
Where do people get these crazy ideas that business should have some other goal beyond profit? It’s “democracy,” stupid.
People believe that, because we live under a democratic form of government, everything should be democratic. American parents sometimes encourage this foolish belief, kowtowing to the whims of toddlers and allowing their children to question parental authority. Do the kids want whole-grain cereal and juice for breakfast, or Pop-Tarts and chocolate milk? Let’s have a referendum!
Our education system is also increasingly “democratic” this way, as demonstrated by the puerile tantrums of overgrown toddlers at Yale University and other campuses run by mobs rule.
Democracy becomes anarchy, a free-for-all where everything is up for grabs, because the basis of authority is always uncertain, and people believe they are entitled to have a vote about everything, and believe they are “oppressed” if anything — whether it’s their job, their school or their marriage — doesn’t perfectly fit their own plans and wishes.
Where legitimate authority is uncertain or disputed, we find what Hobbes called bellum omnium contra omnes (“the war of all against all”), and the identity-politics mentality of “diversity” is symptomatic of this societal drift toward anarchy. Why should anyone care that the CEO of Sam’s Club is a black woman? And why should she care whether the suppliers are white males? Sam’s Club exists to make profit, as do the companies that manufacture the products that are sold at Sam’s Club, and as long as everybody is making profit, so what? The people who are calling for a boycott of Sam’s Club are reflecting the same mentality as those who want to boycott Donald Trump’s businesses because they don’t like Trump’s opinions on immigration. The idea that everything is political — that everything should always be up for a vote or otherwise subject to political influence — and that we are victims of “social injustice” if things don’t go our way, must ultimately lead to anarchy and civil war. Permit me to remind readers of a valuable lesson:
Life is often unfair. People wrongly suffer harm through no fault of their own, and if we allow ourselves to sulk over the harms we’ve suffered, we will never accomplish anything useful in life. Some people go through life reacting to every failure by saying, “It’s not my fault,” and blaming others for their problems. We call these peoplelosers or, if they convert their self-pity to political ideology, we call them “activists.” Life is unfair, says the loser, and this unfairness issocial injustice, and therefore we must rearrange the world to make life better for the losers.
Don’t be a loser. Don’t be the kind of grievance-mongering “activist” who devotes your life to the political ideology of self-pity. And don’t let your kids vote on what to have for breakfast.
P.S.: Shop our Amazon links for Christmas deals because . . . profit!
First published at TheOtherMcCain.com
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.