Germany's Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Wants Businesses to 'take stock of how diverse their workforce is'

Yes, you've read this correctly: Woke Guards want the Gov't to order companies to collect information on race, sex, gender, etc.--what could go wrong?

Last week, a tempest in a teapot occurred in Germany as the country’s Federal Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Ferda Ataman called on companies in the following way:

As could be expected, this statement was picked up by some alt-media outlets, such as eXXpress.at, which brought a brief and superficial piece claiming that ‘German Gov’t Plans Compulsory Skin-Colour Registry’ (25 May 2023) or former—now disgraced (by the juste milieu) Bild editor Julian Reichelt’s pleiteticker.de (lit. ‘bankruptcy watch’), which brought an article, written by Larissa Fußer, subtitled, ‘Ataman Wants to Register Employees Provenance’ (25 May 2023). Here’s a bit from Ms. Fußer’s piece to set the scene (my translation):

Imagine you work in a large company with over 500 employees…at the end of the room, you see your supervisor’s personal assistant walking somewhat awkwardly from table to table. She has an iPad in her hand into which she keeps typing a few words.

You continue to watch the young woman and see that she seems to ask her colleagues a few questions one after the other and then notes down their answers. As the lady comes closer, you realise that the employees being questioned are reacting somewhat irritated to the questions, some even look angry. Finally, the assistant stands in front of you, looks around the room awkwardly and asks you: ‘Do you have a diversity background? Any particular origin, sexual identity or religious affiliation? We need to know that for the company report…’

Of course, Ms. Fußer is a bit fastidious here, but I suppose you’d get the point.

Yet, as always, there is much more than meets the eye, and in the following, we shall explore, first, what Ms. Ataman has said, followed by, second, an enquiry into the background—which is, unsurprisingly, yet another concoction coming straight out of that cesspool of bad ideas known as ‘the EU’—, and, finally, a few bottom lines by yours truly.

Ms. Ataman Goes to Berlin

Any piece on the above-related lunacy may well begin with a brief biographical sketch of its chief protagonist, one Ferda Ataman. Who, one might ask, is Ms. Ataman?

Well, her Ministry of Truth™ entry (available ‘only’, sadly, in German) tells the official story: born in Nuremberg in 1979 to Turkish immigrants, she is is described as ‘a German journalist, political scientist, columnist and author. She has been the Independent Federal Anti-Discrimination Commissioner since July 2022.’

Ataman got published in legacy media, including Der Spiegel and Tagesspiegel. But, wait, there is (much) more:

From 2010 to 2012, she headed the Public Relations and Communications Department of the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, and from 2012 to 2016, the Media Service Integration, an information service for journalists of the Council for Migration.

From April 2018 to February 2020, Ataman wrote the column ‘Heimatkunde’ [this is impossible to translate, but for practical purposes it would perhaps best be understood as something like ‘Explorations of the German Soul’] for Spiegel Online.In spring 2019, she sparked a debate with the Twitter hashtag #vonhier [I’m from here] and her book Ich bin von hier: Hört auf zu fragen! [‘I’m from here: Stop Asking’] sparked a debate about her loyalties [Zugehörigkeit]. Since June 2021, she has written a weekly column for the column series ‘Wissen—Denken—Meinen’ [Knowledge—Thought—Opinion] by Radio Eins, a radio station of [public broadcaster] RBB.

In case it needs to be explained, Ms. Ataman is, of course, affiliated with the Greens, specifically with the Green Party foundation, the Heinrich Böll Stiftung.

In summer 2022, the Bundestag voted to empanel her as the Federal Anti-Discrimination Commissioner (Anti-Diskriminierungsbeauftragte des Bundes).

Her appointment wasn’t exactly ‘uncontroversial’, chiefly because Ataman had criticised that the German term and idea of 'Heimat’ was left to ‘the Right’. She did so in 2015 in a piece for the Amadeu Antonio Stiftung [somewhat tangential here, but that foundation is Germany’s ‘independent’ watchdog agency empowered to enforce anti-hate speech laws online], even going as far as alleging that then-Interior Minister Heinrich Seehofer (CSU) would have at least intellectual ties to Nazi ideology:

The Heimatministerium [Seehofer’s Ministry used the term Heimat, or homeland] is above all a dogwhistle towards potential right-wing voters. The name suggests that from now on a federal authority can decide on Leitkultur and Heimat. Seehofer's first official act was to say: 'Islam does not belong to Germany.’

Mr Seehofer declined to participate in that year’s ‘Immigration Summit’, mainly because he objected to be smeared like that.

There is, of course, much more to read about that incident in Ms Ataman’s Wikipedia entry, such as her subsequent 2020 gaffe (?) when she explained that, among Turks, the term Kartoffel (potato) was used as a label for ethnic Germans. From Wikipedia (my translation and emphases):

Due to a Spiegel op-ed by Ferda Ataman’s, entitled ‘Almanis—oder wie nennen wir Kartoffeln?’ (Almanis—or: what do we call potatoes?) published in 2020, the term potato, used as an equivalent for Germans without migration background, was controversially discussed. In the op-ed, Ataman discussed terms to describe others [Fremdbezeichnungen] used by the majority society [that, in Germany] consisting of white Germans. In doing so, she addressed the way white privilege is pervasive and tried to make it clear that the [the majority’s] resistance to acknowledging [white privilege] derives from [the majority’s] hold on power, including interpretive sovereignty.

Ataman was subsequently massively attacked by many quarters, such as the CDU, the AfD, the Bild-Zeitung, and conservative sections of the German feuilleton, some of whom called her a racist for discriminating against white Germans. The [Bayerische Rundfunk] wrote that these critics overlooked ‘that racism and discrimination only become effective in combination with power. Racism and discrimination take place when a majority that sees itself as the norm devalues and excludes others in a variety of ways. This can happen, for example, in the workplace, at school, when looking for housing, but also when dealing with authorities.’

I’ll leave it here lest this section grows overly long, but I suppose you get the point: Ms Ataman is a quite controversial person whose positions are nonetheless endorsed by ‘the usual suspects’ associated with the ‘woke’ factions, most notably the Greens and their camp followers in legacy media.

As an aside, I ‘wonder’ what would have ensued if, as a thought experiment, someone who self-identifies as ‘on the right’ had used culinary (or other) labels for foreigners. I think it is a fair assumption that the woke cadres, and in particular Ms Ataman, would have exploded with indignation and called for the expulsion from ‘polite society’ of that ‘Nazi’ (incidentally, this is precisely what has happened to Sucharit Bhakdi). More to the point, it would appear that these kinds of ‘insults’ are seemingly o.k. when labelled at Germans ‘without migration background’, which is a stupefyingly ignorant statement and historically highly questionable (due to the unanswered issue of the timeframe, to say the least), but I digress.

Still, when someone like Ms Ataman issues such statements, attention must be paid, if only because she is well-connected among the woke cadres in parliament (Greens) and their camp followers in legacy media. And, of course, this entire sordid episode is a textbook case of hypocrisy and double-standards: imagine, for a moment, if a federal official hailing from ‘the right’ would have done this (let alone, as a designated national security advisor, been speaking to foreign ambassadors, such as Gen. Flynn).

Brussels’ Role and Germany’s Excitement

One of the most insidious aspects of this entire (stupid) ‘affair’ is that we’re so firmly in ‘post-truth’ matters by now that facts seemingly don’t matter anymore. At the root of alt-media excitement about Ms Ataman’s (in my opinion stupid) tweet is an actually much more measured interview she gave to the Handelsblatt. Appearing on the occasion of ‘Diversity Day’ on 23 May 2023, I shall reproduce that interview (partially) in my translation, with emphases added:

Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Ferda Ataman has criticised deficits in Germany on ‘Diversity Day’, which is meant to encourage diversity in the workplace. ‘In international comparison, we in Germany are still clearly lagging behind’, Ataman told the Handelsblatt. This is especially problematic when it comes to cross-border cooperation: ‘If you want to work internationally with other companies, it is important to promote diversity’, said the anti-discrimination commissioner.

Pressure to act also comes from the European Union's Corporate Sustainability Responsibility Directive (CSRD), which entered into force in January this year. It obliges large companies to publish reports on their handling of environmental, social, and governance-related issues. This also includes the diversity factor. Companies have until summer 2024 to implement the directive.

Ataman therefore urges companies to deal with it now. ‘Those who have not yet started on the topic of diversity management should embark on this journey soon.’ Due to the CSRD directive, reporting obligations would come soon…

Basically, that’s how it is. If you ask around in HR departments and management floors, you can hardly avoid the term ‘diversity’. ‘Without diversity, there is no economic success’, is a message that 49 female and male heads of German business have committed themselves to via the Beyond Gender Agenda network. 13 of them head a DAX [the German Dow Jones equivalent] company.

Yet, at the same time, it is noticeable that many companies are still very homogeneously positioned, contrary to this trend. Among the 49 CEOs who have joined the Beyond Gender Agenda campaign, only ten are women. Diversity is also an economic factor: studies show that more diverse companies are more successful.

The Anti-Discrimination Commissioner advises companies to first take stock of how diverse their workforce already is. ‘Diversity is often equated with the promotion of women’, she criticises. Diversity also means taking into account people with different sexual identities, religions, or origins…

Discussion About Fixed Quotas [i.e., Affirmative Action]

In reality, Ana-Cristina Grohnert [from the employers’ initiative Charta der Vielfalt (Diversity Charter), yet another ‘diversity consultancy’] says, there are still many who say: I prefer to work with people who are similar to me—and hire accordingly. Although the economy has come a long way in recent years in terms of diversity, it is ‘absolutely not yet where it should be’.

In 2022, the proportion of women on the boards of the 100 largest German companies was 15.6%; ten years earlier, it stood at 4.4%. The women’s quota set for the board level in 2021 was an important additional driver in this development, emphasises Grohnert.

The Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, however, does not think much of politicians imposing quotas on the private sector. Businesses must decide for themselves whether or not it really makes economic sense not to open up to prospective employee groups.

As you can see, the proximate origin of the above-related tempest in the teapot is…well, a lot of set-pieces (Versatzstücke) and hot air coming from people who, arguably, stand to benefit economically and personally from a more forceful push towards ‘diversity’. Any discussion of possible conflicts of interest are, of course, anathema to legacy media.

Moreoever, what Ms Ataman actually said in the interview—as well as on Twitter—is something else: her stance derives from something concocted in Brussels, a ‘nuance’ that wasn’t lost on Larissa Fußer (my translation and emphases):

Ataman justifies her demand with a new EU regulation for companies that came into force in January this year…Interestingly, if you look at the categories that the EU sees as part of this diversity analysis, you will notice that only age, gender, educational, and professional background are explicitly mentioned.

So, Ataman has added obtaining of information about sexual identity, religion, or origin. The EU’s already seemingly encroaching attitude check has thus been turned [by Ataman] into the liberty to enquire about the private lives of employees. What else can you call it when an employer seriously asks for information on the sexual orientation of his employees? Even stranger is the idea of how the analysis of origin is to be carried out. Is a skin colour palette then unceremoniously held next to the employee’s face and his skin tone matched? Does the employee have to give blood and hair samples so that one of those wacky genetic analyses can be carried out in the laboratory, which then shows whether one had some ancestor from South Africa, the Caucasus, or the North Pole?

And what do you do with dark-skinned employees? Asking them about their origin is already demonised as the worst kind of racism. Do you only ask them about their sexual orientation? And is it also possible if the employee wears a headscarf—isn't that ‘haram’, i.e., forbidden according to the Islamic faith?

I have great sympathies for such incisive commentary, as satire and ridicule is typically the best way to call out these moronic issues.

Yet, it is noteworthy that virtually no-one in legacy media seemed to care (enough) about Ms Ataman’s statements.

More to the point, EU Directive 2022/2464, the ‘legal basis’ of Ms Ataman’s claims, is notoriously clear about what should and what shouldn’t be reported on. Here are excerpts from Section 49 (my emphases):

Sustainability reporting standards should specify the information that undertakings should disclose on social factors, including working conditions, social partner involvement, collective bargaining, equality, non-discrimination, diversity and inclusion, and human rights…information that undertakings disclose about human rights should include information about forced labour and child labour in their value chains where relevant. [good luck for your smart phone and laptop batteries] Sustainability reporting requirements concerning forced labour should not free public authorities of their responsibility to address, through trade policy and diplomatic means, the import of goods produced as a result of human rights abuses, including forced labour…

Sustainability reporting standards that address social factors should specify the information that undertakings should disclose with regard to the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights that are relevant to businesses, including equal opportunities for all and working conditions. The Action Plan on the European Pillar of Social Rights, adopted by the Commission on 4 March 2021, calls for stronger requirements on undertakings to report on social issues. The sustainability reporting standards should also specify the information that undertakings should disclose with regard to the human rights, fundamental freedoms, democratic principles and standards established in the International Bill of Human Rights and other core UN human rights conventions…Reporting carried out on social factors, as well as on environmental and governance factors, should be proportionate to the scope and the goals of this amending Directive. Sustainability reporting standards that address gender equality and equal pay for work of equal value should specify, amongst other things, information to be reported about the gender pay gap, taking account of other relevant Union law. Sustainability reporting standards that address employment and inclusion of people with disabilities should specify, amongst other things, information to be reported about accessibility measures taken by the undertaking.

Sustainability reporting standards that address training and skills development should specify, amongst other things, information to be reported about the proportion and breakdown of workers participating in training. Sustainability reporting standards that address collective bargaining should specify, amongst other things, information to be disclosed about the existence of works councils as well as the existence of collective agreements and the proportion of workers covered by such agreements. Sustainability reporting standards that address participation of workers should specify, amongst other things, information to be disclosed about the participation of workers in administrative and supervisory boards. Sustainability reporting standards that address diversity should specify, amongst other things, information to be reported on gender diversity at top management and the number of members of the under-represented sex on their boards.

Lots of more or less vacuous blabber, for sure, but the main point here is this: what Ms Ataman proposes, perhaps inadvertently, is to oblige companies to do (way) ‘more’ than the EU ever asked. While I personally doubt that whatever happens to the executive boards of companies now will not ‘spill over’ to eventually cover all employees (mission creep, anyone?), Ms Ataman is actually proposing to out-do what is called for by the EU.

Why, one might ask, would anyone in his or her right mind would do that? Perhaps the answer lies in an almost overlooked detail of Ms Ataman’s activities:

Ms Ataman is also a ‘business owner’, i.e., together with Konstantina Vassiliou-Enz, they run the ‘Diversity Kartell’, a diversity consultancy operating out of Berlin. Leaving Ms Ataman’s (stupid) statements aside, this glaring conflict of interest—remember, Ms Ataman is the Federal Anti-Discrimination Commissioner—would be something that disqualifies her from being a federal official overseeing, well, precisely that field, but apparently mentioning this facet is a proverbial ‘bridge too far’, albeit for both legacy and alt-media.

Now, I’m the last one to publicly shame someone for business-related activities, but given the above, I’d argue that Ms Ataman has some ‘splainin’ to do with regard to her potential conflicts of interest. There’s quite a bit of what used to be called ‘moral hazard’ in her ambition to outdo the EU.

Bottom Lines

This is disgusting on a number of levels. Sure, I could now bring up my own experiences in these regards, which go as follows:

Born in Austria, I’ve spent a decade in neighbouring Switzerland, worked in the US for a few months (as a visiting professor at an Ivy League College), and I’ve relocated to Norway a few years ago.

Before moving to the US five years ago, I never really thought about (self-) identifying as ‘white’, but courtesy of the US categorisations, I learned that I’m, in fact, ‘white’.

I don’t meant to deny discrimination and abuse, and I abhor it.

BUT: as a multiple migrant myself, ‘even’ I—as a ‘white’ person, mind you—have been on the receiving end of anti-immigrant slurs, most notably in Switzerland and Norway, of all places.

I find Ms Ataman’s above-related comments offendingly stupid rather than incendiary (even though, to my mind, that they are, too). I have no idea why Ms Ataman—who’s arguably among the worst-suited people for the position as Anti-Discrimination Commissioner—was appointed, but then again, we live in a time and age where conformity and ideological righteousness trump (pun intended) sanity and, yes, reality.

This ‘irony’ (oh, if it only were) was not lost on Ms Fußer who concluded her piece in the following fashion:

The proposal of our ‘anti-discrimination commissioner’ is nothing but discriminatory. Ataman wants to force companies to make personnel decisions no longer dependent on the individual performance of employees, but only on their membership of certain state-protected groups. I also find Ataman's enthusiasm for recording and publishing employees’ most private information strange.

Basically, it is none of my employer’s business where I come from and what I do in my spare time. If he asks me with interest, for example to better assess me as a person, I can think about what information I want to share with him voluntarily. However, if my boss were to force me to write private details in an Excel list with reference to a state order, which would then also be transferred to a public report, I would kindly ask him whether I should not orientate myself on the personal index cards of the Stasi.

What Ms Fußer—correctly, if not in these words—points out is this: conformity and affiliation to ‘certain state-protected groups’ trumps competence and merit.

We’ve seen this before with respect to the Covid Madness:

But now, with the EU issuing Directive 2022/2464, the end of competence and merit in hiring is about to become a sad reality.

The lights will go out in Europe for a variety of reasons: economic suicide brought about by energy woes and the severe economic crash due to government largesse and looming (central bank) insolvency.

‘Diversity’ as a wedge to put an end to competence and merit in hiring based on, frankly, racist and ideological considerations will contribute to this, but it stands to reason that this is one of many ‘morbid symptoms’ (Antonio Gramsci) that accompany the the dying of the old and the emergence of a new world.

I wouldn’t be surprised if people, such as Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Ataman and her ilk would be among the first to be jettisoned once the proverbial s*** starts hitting the fan.

Perhaps as early as autumn and winter of this year.