Many groups over the last century or so have defined themselves in terms of trying to overcome other people’s biases, while our group here is defined more in terms of trying to overcome our own biases.  What is the relation between these two types of activities?

Over the last century many groups have self-identified as repressed "minorities" and sought to organize themselves to act to shame and threaten so others will "repress" them less in various ways.  More recently many (but hardly all) of these groups have formed a coalition to together support all their demands, under the banner of supporting "diversity."  The argument seems to be that we all tend to be biased to treat poorly those who deviate from a certain ideal, e.g., rich middle-aged middle-height white male right-handed hearing Christian heterosexuals.   

We gather here instead to try to overcome our own biases, whatever those may be.  So we must confront our relation to this history.  If we accepted this coalition’s main claim, we would try to overcome our own bias favoring this standard ideal.  And we would have to judge how much of this bias remains in our culture, after the many successes of this coalition in remaking our culture.  If we accept a more general claim that we tend to be biased against all minorities of any sort, we would try to overcome our own bias against minority features or activities.  (Is there a better way to phrase a general claim here?)

Of course we must also consider the hypothesis that we are not biased against minorities in general, or this coalition in particular, either because we never were so biased or because we have already overcome such biases.  In this case we might view the continued lobbying of self-identified repressed minorities as just a selfish grab for more attention and deference than they deserve [added: or more charitably, just an honest mistake on their part.]

What say ye all?  And what evidence can help us decide?