Disclaimers, disclaimers…

The phrase “Some of my best friends are [blank]” has become a proverbial tag-on to a ranting diatribe against the parenthetic group. The ensuing ‘but’ is always there, spoken or implied.

People who deliver ranting diatribes are objectionable, whatever the object of their hatred. But, as Richard Littlejohn shows, even good people have to borrow the disclaimer trick from the bad ones.

Mr Littlejohn is a conservative columnist who does common sense better than anyone else I know. He seldom has a good word to say about any foreigner, but that’s a forgivable idiosyncrasy for a proud denizen of this island nation.

Other than that little affectation, I find his articles cogent, lucid, soundly argued and – most important – in agreement with mine.

This morning, for example, he wrote a long piece about the minority quotas imposed on State Street managers, saying essentially the same things that I wrote on this subject the other day – things that any sensible person would write.

However, while I normally agree with every sentence Mr Littlejohn writes, I have to take issue with one of his sentences today. Talking about the inane and discriminatory nature of any quotas based on race, sex or other incidentals, he felt called upon to introduce a disclaimer:

“For the record, I absolutely support any sincere attempt to ensure that the workforce reflects the people it is designed to serve.”

In other words, Mr Littlejohn implicitly supports the very quotas he so clearly despises. For how else can a company “ensure” such proportional representation?

The BAME population in London is roughly 40 per cent of the total. Does that mean 40 per cent of State Street fund managers have to be black or Asian? And 52 per cent of them female or 2.5 per cent homosexual? How many boxes does a black Asian lesbian tick? One, two, three or four?

Or let’s say the company, no longer prepared to contend with the extortionate cost of renting offices at Canary Wharf, were to relocate to, say, Bradford, where BAME population is merely a third of the total. Does that mean it’ll be expected to lower its BAME quota?

Wherever State Street is, what if its managers can’t find enough qualified candidates from such backgrounds (this is purely hypothetical, as I hope you realise)? There’s only one logical answer to that question.

They’ll have to bite the bullet and hire unqualified ones. Otherwise, in line with the incentive favoured by State Street, their bonuses will be slashed. And that would only be a warning shot across their bow, with a full broadside of dismissal to follow if they continue to disobey.

On the other hand, every unqualified employee will lower the company’s profitability and, consequently, the managers’ bonuses. I pity those poor souls. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. And the worst thing is that they bang their heads against the wall, trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist in real life.

As Thomas Sowell, himself black, shows so brilliantly in his books (such as Wealth, Poverty and Politics), proportional representation of any group has never been achieved in any country.

Moreover, he shows that discrimination against any group is more likely to occur at state institutions than at commercial companies. This stands to reason: firms stake their own money on each hire; the government, someone else’s. Since the laws of human nature haven’t yet been repealed, the government is more prone to bring extraneous considerations into its personnel policy.

Having spent decades in the business world on both sides of the Atlantic, I can testify to the truth of Prof. Sowell’s observation. I’ve met quite a few managers who were prejudiced against this or that group – but not a single one who let his biases affect his judgement on aspiring candidates.

On the other hand, how often do we hear of a political party nominating not the most qualified candidate, but one who fits a set of criteria having nothing to do with his ability to serve his constituency or govern a nation? This is especially noticeable in America.

Having followed US politics for the better part of half a century, I wish I had a tenner for each time I’ve heard of the dire need to balance a ticket with a woman, a man, a black, a Latino, a southerner, a northerner or some such. Never once have I heard of the need to balance a ticket with a true statesman.

Mr Littlejohn knows all this. Yet he also knows that even a conservative pundit employed by a conservative paper must watch his step. When taking a swipe at an asinine practice, he has to reassure the wokers of the world that he opposes only the excesses of their perverse ideology, not its very core. Disclaimers aren’t advisory; they are mandatory.

“You can’t say this” and “You must say that” are the pernicious phrases wafting through the air at every media outlet. And the worst thing is that they no longer have to be uttered. Such things increasingly go without saying, and every hack knows when to push the self-censorship button.

Self-censorship, like any other kind, can be proscriptive (things that can’t be said) or prescriptive (things that must be said). Some free speech can survive the former, just, but never the latter.

I hope our press won’t become similar to the Soviet papers of my childhood. I fear it may, for it’s unmistakably moving in that direction.