This manifesto may or may not have a valid point, without seeing the contents we will likely never truly know. Apologies for the lengthy post to follow.
Let me start by saying that diversity is always important. Without diversity you tend to end up with an echo chamber that produces things that are only worthwhile for the subset of people represented within the group.
However, it is important to think about the cost that diversity targets can have on both the under-represented and over-represented groups within a company. Diversity targets for hiring or promotion will mean the over-represented group(s) will tend to view those who are hired or promoted with disdain. Meanwhile the under-represented group(s) may well doubt their position within the company, worrying that they are in their position only due to belonging to the flavour of the month diversity target. The other part is that members of the under-represented group who were previously employed on their own merits are likely to hold a similar position to that of the majority group(s), for similar reasons.
Now it's time for an anecdote... My girlfriend works as an engineer in an oil and gas company. Her company is fully on board with the current gender diversity push, and has created several new positions at a fairly high level specifically to meet their diversity targets. These are high level positions with no one reporting to them in the current structure (which was defined by the massive restructure following the fall in oil prices). Her issues with the positions and their seniority boils down to education and time in the industry. If they were being filled by candidates based on skill, a large proportion of them would be male (and probably white). This would be because the vast majority of the people with the relevant experience are white males. By pushing the female agenda, she fears that not only will these roles be filled by poor candidates, it will also promote the stereotype that women are unsuitable for the job.
There is room for diversity targets, but they must be mindful of the talent pool available for the specific job. Whilst it hurts at this point, the most reasonable course is to promote equality in education. If your company is hiring on skill, then the equality issues will resolve in time, without making anyone resentful of the first year grad who got promoted to team leader because the company needed to meet a quota.
To derail myself slightly following the above wall of text. Would the current white, male disgruntlement be as bad had there not been the GFC etc, and the subsequent (and continuing layoffs/stagnation of wages?
Let me start by saying that diversity is always important. Without diversity you tend to end up with an echo chamber that produces things that are only worthwhile for the subset of people represented within the group.
However, it is important to think about the cost that diversity targets can have on both the under-represented and over-represented groups within a company. Diversity targets for hiring or promotion will mean the over-represented group(s) will tend to view those who are hired or promoted with disdain. Meanwhile the under-represented group(s) may well doubt their position within the company, worrying that they are in their position only due to belonging to the flavour of the month diversity target. The other part is that members of the under-represented group who were previously employed on their own merits are likely to hold a similar position to that of the majority group(s), for similar reasons.
Now it's time for an anecdote... My girlfriend works as an engineer in an oil and gas company. Her company is fully on board with the current gender diversity push, and has created several new positions at a fairly high level specifically to meet their diversity targets. These are high level positions with no one reporting to them in the current structure (which was defined by the massive restructure following the fall in oil prices). Her issues with the positions and their seniority boils down to education and time in the industry. If they were being filled by candidates based on skill, a large proportion of them would be male (and probably white). This would be because the vast majority of the people with the relevant experience are white males. By pushing the female agenda, she fears that not only will these roles be filled by poor candidates, it will also promote the stereotype that women are unsuitable for the job.
There is room for diversity targets, but they must be mindful of the talent pool available for the specific job. Whilst it hurts at this point, the most reasonable course is to promote equality in education. If your company is hiring on skill, then the equality issues will resolve in time, without making anyone resentful of the first year grad who got promoted to team leader because the company needed to meet a quota.
To derail myself slightly following the above wall of text. Would the current white, male disgruntlement be as bad had there not been the GFC etc, and the subsequent (and continuing layoffs/stagnation of wages?