The headline “Sunak’s Ascent Is A Breakthrough for Diversity, with Privilege” on Tuesday’s New York Times front page shows that conservatives will never pass media’s biased diversity tests.
The game is rigged. The game is rigged.
Megan Specia, Isabella Kwai, and Isabella Kwai opened Tuesday’s front-page article with a charming, nonideological scene about Hindus in Britain celebrating Diwali. They also included “something new.”
….the latest that Rishi Sunak (eldest son of a Indian-American pharmacist and doctor) will be the prime minister of Britain. He will be the first person of color to hold the highest office in Britain.
The mood was bleak, and there were many social grievances that needed to be voiced.
Mr. Sunak, 42 years old, has always been proud of his Indian heritage and regularly refers to his upbringing as a son of immigrants. He hasn’t put his heritage at center of his political message. Instead, he focuses on his experience in finance and the British news media have not focused on his ethnicity.
Instead, it is Mr. Sunak’s elite education and extreme wealth which have attracted scrutiny. They have become something of an political liability in a society notoriously divided by tensions about class.
….
Priya Gohil, a Hindu from India, said, “We are very proud of our heritage and we are very excited,” as she was leaving the temple with her family after performing Diwali prayers. It’s very relatable.”
Many people were less familiar with his air of privilege.
Mr. Sunak attended the prestigious Winchester College, a private boarding college in Britain. He then went on to Oxford University and Stanford. Before he became a politician, he worked in finance at Goldman Sachs and two other hedge funds. He is also married Akshata Murty (the daughter of one India’s richest men).
While skepticism about his wealth has been a constant companion in his bid to lead the Conservative Party, many of his predecessors also came from privileged backgrounds. Even though he was declared the winner of Monday’s contest to lead the country, the issue is still relevant.
This is especially galling because the Times promoted a similar theme in September upon the ascent (before a quick downfall) and victory of the previous Conservative PM Liz Truss. The Times couldn’t attack Truss’s new cabinet because it was lily-white. Instead, it attacked it for being “diverse in background, but not in ideology.”
