Federal

Jul 11, 2017

What Mark Latham didn’t say about his ‘white male privilege’ report

Gender and diversity training in the APS is working, but you won't hear Mark Latham say that.

Josh Taylor — Journalist

Josh Taylor

Journalist

Former Labor leader Mark Latham has said that a recent study on hiring practices proves that "white male privilege is a leftie lie", but the report actually says that diversity training is having the desired effect.

The one-time contender for the Lodge, now host of a weekly show on his Facebook page, pointed to a report put out by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet late last month and said it was proof that "the left’s rhetoric about 'unconscious bias' and 'white male privilege' has been a hoax".

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions

6 comments

Leave a comment

6 thoughts on “What Mark Latham didn’t say about his ‘white male privilege’ report

  1. Camm

    You should probably note that women outnumber men in the public service as a whole as well, at 56% compared to 44%.

    Hate to say it, Latham’s right – “Gender and diversity” training in the APS is now resulting in discrimination against males.

    1. John Hall

      As an ex Public Servant I can say that in the Seventies and Eighties many women were in junior roles compared to men. It was only in the sixties when a female APS employee was terminated upon marriage. Thank God for progress. If it is going a bit more the other way now – suck it up Latham and take it like a man, not a whining baby that has had its ice cream taken away.

      1. Camm

        Nice tu quoque. The reality is is that we should be striving for no discrimination whatsoever, not reverse discrimination.

  2. JQ

    So BETA conducts a blind study whereby applications are de-identified, with the aim of ensuring that successful candidates will be chosen based on MERIT, and not on their gender.
    The results show that candidates are “2.9% more likely to shortlist female candidates and 3.2% less likely to shortlist male applicants when they were identifiable versus unidentifiable,” which was the OPPOSITE of what they had expected.
    The logical conclusion then should be that the best candidates in this case happened to be men, and that their aptitude for the job had nothing to do with their gender.
    Why then was the conclusion reached that different methods need to be used?
    Surely the correct conclusion is that achieving gender balance means you don’t select the best candidates based on an arbitrary quota.

    1. JQ

      I should clarify (as if anyone cares or is even going to read this): the logical conclusion should be that it is in everyone’s best interest to select candidates based on their merit, not on whichever identity group said candidate belongs to.
      A blind recruitment process happens to show that a particular group is selected more than when an identifiable recruitment process is conducted, in contradiction of your expected outcome. Conclusion? Not that your hypothesis is wrong, but that instead we should try something else to get the result we want.
      Ignore the truth, keep dividing people, forget competence-based hierarchies, push on with your political agenda. Pathological to the core!

  3. AR

    Speaking to the usual suspects on HateCentral, the Macquarie network, mad Marky kept getting his figures & conclusions mixed up but it didn’t matter, it was his fulmination that was important, not coherence.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...