What happens when someone on a diversity committee has a different view? Are differences welcomed for the diversity advocates?
Consider this article from the Sydney Morning Herald. (H/T Matthew)
Here’s our protagonist, a psychiatrist who stated publicly that children do best with a mother AND a father:
Professor Kuruvilla George, who is Victoria’s deputy chief psychiatrist, has signed a submission to a senate inquiry calling for a ban on same-sex marriage.
He is among a group of doctors, who in a letter to the marriage equality inquiry, say limiting marriage between a man and woman “is important for the future health of our nation”.
“We submit that the evidence is clear that children who grow up in a family with a mother and father do better in all parameters than children without,” the Doctors for the Family group says.
His view is supported by evidence. What do the diversity czars think of his evidence?
Victorian opposition attorney-general Martin Pakula said Prof George needs to explain to the government and the community why he should remain a board member on the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC), given his views.
“The equal opportunity commission are regularly asked to deal with matters where people are alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and I don’t know how Prof George can properly deal with those matters given the sentiments he’s expressed,” Mr Pakula told reporters.
The diversity elites do not have evidence – but they are very offended by views different from their own.
And here’s how it all ended:
Professor Kuruvilla George has resigned “due to time constraints and personal reasons”, Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission chairman John Searle said today.
[...]The resignation does not affect Prof George’s other role as Victoria’s deputy chief psychiatrist.
It comes less than 24 hours after Deputy Premier Peter Ryan defended Prof George’s right to sign the submission in a private capacity.
Mr Clark had also defended Prof George’s right to free speech.
What do I learn from this? Well, what I learn is that qualifications do not matter to the secular left. It doesn’t matter what you know about a problem, or how familiar you are with the evidence. What matters is whether you have the right answer – their answer. It’s not competence that matters to the secular left – it’s unanimity of thought. In order to serve on the diversity panel, there must be no diversity of opinion however much it is rooted in evidence.