[brighteyes]

That's all true, and definitely that perspective matters a lot.

But it's not the only qualification necessary for the job. The other is to effect change in the organization. By your logic, if a black person is better at understanding the problems black people face, perhaps a white person would be better at getting white people to change things in the company.

I actually think both of those are wrong. You can feel horror at the Rwandan genocide or the holocaust or other massive injustices without being African or Jewish. You don't just intellectually understand racism in the US - I hope - you also feel it has to change.

Again, I agree the perspectives of underrepresented minorities are crucial here. But that doesn't lead to "every single chief of diversity must be non-white."

[mjbh7k]

"But it's not the only qualification necessary for the job."

Exactly, but it is one qualification of many. If you have a white man with a stellar application for that position, and a woman of color with a similarly stellar application for that position, doesn't the woman of color necessarily get the job because she has more qualifications than the white man?

The point is there is always going to be a person of color that is more qualified than the white man for that leadership position because their experience as a person of color makes them more qualified for the position, everything else being equal, and they should thus be given it. Is that not reasonable?

[malandrew]

I don't actually believe the following statement, but just to play devil's advocate, what would you say if I made the argument which is a direct corollary to the argument you are making:

"The head of diversity should be a white male because they are the only ones qualified to understand white male privilege and therefore will be more effective at working and communicating with others that also have the same privilege and coming up with ways to get others with privilege to change their behavior. Seeing that those with privilege are a majority in the industry, a white male leading it would be more effective leading more people to changing attitudes."

[brighteyes]

You're ignoring the parallel argument I made to yours (not that I believe it, but I'm saying it makes as much sense as yours), which would suggest the white man is more qualified.

Anyhow, in practice, I doubt it matters: most applicants to such positions are likely not white men anyhow. So the racism inherent in such statements as "white folks are not suitable for this role" is not only wrong, it is also unnecessary.

[mjbh7k]

Again, no one ever said white people are not suitable for this role or can't be involved in any way. This is the third time I've pointed this out. No one is saying white people can't be empathetic, or thoughtful, or innovative when it comes to topics of race. It's just that people of color are even more qualified to lead these programs as they have first hand experience existing in an exceptionally racist system.

White people are already in charge of everything, they don't also need to be in charge of diversity. That's exactly why these positions are being created in the first place.

[brighteyes]

You're refuting something I didn't say. What I did say was an argument directly against

> It's just that people of color are even more qualified

which you're ignoring again. Is it because the argument wasn't clear? Should I try again?

[malandrew]

I made your point clearer with my devil's advocate reply. I too am curious about the answer.