Vilifying the Privileged Undermines the Important Debate on Diversity

The emotional blackmail with which the media has approached Rory Stewart’s decision to run for Mayor of London demonstrates that we are not serious about diversity. The suggestion that he should have a guilty conscience for running against a black conservative with a challenging upbringing or a successful Muslim lawyer is simplistic and ultimately undermines the debate on diversity by turning it into an ideological war on privilege. In essence, it asks that Rory Stewart apologise for the education and upbringing that his parents afforded him and, in some act of redemption, relinquish any political ambition. It inadvertently dilutes the value of objective individual achievement, which could be turned to the benefit of the many, by promoting contempt for one’s background and social status, a.k.a. class war.

As a Londoner and therefore a consumer in this market, I have no interest in whether the future Mayor can speak Latin or Greek. I would, however, take serious note of someone who previously headed an important global school such as the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard. I would admire it if someone acted (if true) as an intelligence officer, thereby putting his own safety at risk for his country without a single reader of The Daily Mail knowing about it. I would be impressed if he had travelled, lived and helped those in troubled parts of the world such as Iraq or Afghanistan, whilst learning to speak the local languages.  A ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ complex or not, all those experiences, as well as his brief life as a government minister, would suggest that he, at the very least, may be mayoral material.

But instead of carefully examining objective achievements and abilities, the debate appears to criticise the combination of an excellent education, wealth (although unclear in Rory Stewart’s case that he is in fact rich) and an elevated social circle. If this approach is trying to improve diversity and inclusiveness, it is failing going about it in the wrong way. It is, of course, obvious that diversity must aim at the advancement of those who come from modest or poor income families and ultimately their inclusion in high-flying professions and political life. But the only way this can be achieved is by first accepting that high-quality education, wealth and an interesting social circle are all good things, whether yours or someone else’s. Those embroiled instead in this vicious circle, display resentment of privilege in others, despite themselves mostly aspiring to self-advancement by seeking to earn more, secure a better education for their children, enjoy better health, have more fun in life and increase their social status.

There is no shame in aspiring for self-advancement and certainly there must be no guilt in it, irrespective of your political inclinations or socio-economic background.  A good illustration of this is Baroness Chakrabarti, a formidable human rights lawyer and now shadow Attorney General. When asked about the education system in 2016, she stated, in an interview in The Independent in 2016, that she did not live a privileged life when she was young but now lives a charmed life (enabling her to educate her son privately): “I live a charmed and privileged life, much more now that I ever did when I was a child, but people on the Left often had charmed and privileged lives…”.

It would be wrong to criticise Baroness Chakrabarti or, worse, expect her to feel guilty about her hard work, self-belief and the ambition to succeed and do better in life than her parents. It is not a sin to lead, in her words, to live “a charmed life”. There was also nothing objectionable about her gladly accepting a seat in the House of Lords as a celebration of professional success and ambition. But in the same breath, she would also probably (and rightly) object to her more privileged son being discriminated against or vilified if he were later to chose to follow in his mother’s footsteps by becoming a lawyer, Attorney General or a member of the legislature. Should her success and ambition be her son’s cross to bear? Should his private education and social circle be held against him if he runs for office in the future?

Baroness Chakrabarti is only one of many examples of success and privilege acquired by fighting relentlessly for social justice and the underprivileged. There is no contradiction here; it is a simple display of human nature which is fundamentally competitive and strives to do better. It is an evolutionary pre-requisite. That is why the class war approach to improving diversity is hollow and counterproductive. Just like communism, it is contrary to human nature, it discourages competition, productivity and dampens individuality. It is also futile because the underprivileged of today will and should strive to become the privileged of tomorrow. Some will succeed. What then? Should they be socially crucified if they do not relinquish their ambitions? Class war polarises people and diverts the debate away from the real problem with diversity, which in my view cannot be solved by an ideological war on privilege but by improving education. By that I mean not just academic education but also education from an early age on self-belief, self-expression and the confidence that your opinions are important and valid, no matter how little money you have or what your parents do. This ethos must, however, be instilled by the parents themselves and by teachers. So our work should start with educating the educators before the next generation hit the job market. Why, then, not try to make self-expression and confidence-building a compulsory part of the national curriculum by, for example, introducing a debating class for children from the age of seven onwards? After all, is it not self-possession, confidence and a belief in one’s convictions that we apparently loathe but secretly admire in the privileged?

I do not think self-entitled people who have nothing to offer beyond a comfortable upbringing and a decent education should be given more than they deserve. Everyone should earn their place in society and they should do so by demonstrating that they are the best woman or man for the job, whatever the job may be. Fortunately, an increase in competition in our ever-globalising world has made the private as well as the public job market more sophisticated and merit-based and as a result more diverse. Democratic elections should be no different where a collection of people have the power to select one individual in favour of another. If they find that privilege comes with the wrong attitude and incompetence, then let the people eschew the privileged in favour of someone who will properly serve them. But this should be a merit-led exercise and not a campaign of subtle bullying by suggestions of fashion trends and the setting of guilt-traps, all disguised in sanctimony. If we allow that to happen then our quest for diversity has failed.