Diversity good, tokenism not

Question of the day:

The question does have to be asked: is diversity for the sake of diversity what we really need? Does the deliberate attempt to include a broader range of people actually improve  representation?   Amelia Romanos 

The answer to the first question is no – that’s not diversity but tokenism.

The answer to the second is it could but doesn’t always.

Judith Collins, Paula Bennett and Hekia Parata have added to the gender and ethnic diversity of National’s front bench and they have won their places through merit not tokenism.

If the broader range includes people who deserve to be through ability and for the contribution they will make, as it is with these three, that is good. If it includes people who are not there for their skills and ability but only for what they contribute to diversity it isn’t.


4 Responses to Diversity good, tokenism not

  1. adamsmith1922 says:

    National on merit, Labour by quota and faction


  2. homepaddock says:

    Astute observation, Adam.


  3. robertguyton says:

    Bennett? Merit?
    The voters didn’t think so.


  4. homepaddock says:

    The nearly 48% who voted National nationally did and I don’t think an 11 vote loss is the kick in the backside the ungracious victor thinks it is.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: