Mark Latham: ‘White male privilege’ myth busted

A groundbreaking government study proves the idea of the bigoted white Australian male is a leftist lie, writes Mark Latham.

• Mark Latham: Left, right and all wrong
• Mark Latham: The new ideological war already on the home front

The Australian people have been victims of a gigantic con-job.

In recent years, the likes of Bill Shorten, the Greens and ABC/Fairfax leftist media have been saying we are a bigoted nation.

We are racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic — the whole Hillary Clinton “basket of deplorables”.

We are said to be a nation of “white male privilege” where women, ethnic minorities and indigenous folk are discriminated against in the workplace and broader community.

Mark Latham. Picture: Harold David

This slur against suburban and regional Australia has never been supported by hard evidence.

In fact, international surveys have found Australia to be one of the most tolerant nations in the world, a model for peaceful multiculturalism.

Now some domestic data has emerged. Research from the Prime Minister’s Department has shown that, if there is workplace discrimination, it’s against white men and in favour of women and ethnic minorities.

The left’s rhetoric about “unconscious bias” and “white male privilege” has been a hoax.

In its report Going Blind To See More Clearly, the Behavioural Economics Team of the Australian Government (BETA) has found “that Australian Public Service (APS) officers generally discriminate in favour of female and minority candidates” for job vacancies.

The research was the first “rigorous trial of its kind in the Australian public or private sector” to assess workplace bias.

More than 2100 public servants from 14 agencies participated in the project. Their role was to shortlist job applicants to be interviewed for senior executive positions, using two types of CVs.

The first was a “blind recruitment”, where no names were available, making the identification of gender and ethnic background impossible.

The second set of CVs revealed the applicants’ names and identity, meaning that gender and racial discrimination could then be measured.

The complaint that Australian workplaces have not been diverse is a lie, says Mark Latham. Picture: istock

I’ve been reading government reports for 40 years and I’ve never seen one as devastating as this.

It has been produced by some of Australia’s best behavioural economists and data experts, so it’s dripping with integrity.

The results demolish the left’s credibility on questions of workplace discrimination.

Once the CV names were unmasked, female applicants were 2.9 per cent more likely to be short-listed, while male candidates faced a 3.2 per cent disadvantage.

For people from a non-English speaking heritage, the findings were even more telling.

When the identity of female indigenous applicants was known, they were 22.2 per cent more likely to advance to interview stage.

Indigenous men were 9.4 per cent better off.

MARK LATHAM: White men are being blamed for everything

Among all ethnic groups, women were 8.6 per cent more likely to advance, while ethnic men were 5.8 per cent advantaged.

What about Anglo-Celtic applicants, supposedly the recipients of “white privilege”?

White women received a 1.0 per cent leg up through the process, while white men were 6.5 per cent less likely to be short-listed.

That’s right: if there is discrimination in the Australian Public Service, its victims are white men.

They have no “white male privilege”. They are treated in a way that inflicts white male disadvantage.

What about the APS staff making the recruitment decisions?

What sort of person was most likely to favour job applicants from a “minority” background?

Here’s what the study found:

“Male reviewers displayed markedly more discrimination in favour of minority candidates than did female reviewers. Male reviewers were 11.6 per cent more likely to shortlist minority men and 13.6 per cent more likely to shortlist minority females, while female reviewers were only 1.84 per cent more likely to shortlist minority men and 5.5 per cent more likely to shortlist minority females.”

This is what I have been saying all along.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has also gone on the basis rampage.

Hillary Clinton savaged her opponents as a “basket of deplorables”. Picture:. National Geographic Channel.

The average Australian man deserves our respect, not demonisation.

He cares enough about the people around him to help those who are willing to help themselves.

There is nothing deplorable about the Australian character.

We are not a nation of bigots.

We believe in and practise meritocracy — judging people as we find them — and giving those in need a fair go.

We need to unite the Australian people as one community, not divide them through identity politics — judging people by their race, gender and sexuality.

We are, in effect, a colourblind country, assessing people by their individual character and circumstances.

The only activists emphasising skin colour are leftists — cultural Marxists who have run through and captured our major institutions, with the consent of weak-kneed political figures such as Malcolm Turnbull.

The head of the Prime Minister’s Department, Martin Parkinson, has staked his reputation on the validity of “unconscious bias” — a belief that even if people are not overtly bigoted, in the deep reaches of their minds they will still favour job applicants who look like them.

PM Malcolm Turnbull. Picture: Kym Smith

It’s like a medieval superstition: that somehow we have lost control of our faculties.

Today, Parkinson has been left with egg on his face.

Research from his own department has shown there is no need for affirmative action, employment quotas or any other form of institutionalism favouritism to help minorities.

Male public servants are promoting a wide range of people through the system.

The theory of unconscious bias is nonsense.

This is also true of the entire “diversity and inclusion” industry — the multibillion-dollar heist inside our banks, law and accounting firms, Qantas, Telstra and throughout the public sector, attaching expensive “diversity units” to major enterprises and government agencies.

The BETA report exposes the “diversity agenda” as fake leftist ideology. It is yet another attempt to exercise autocratic social control and manipulation when none is needed.

The con-job must end.