Unlike inclusion and equity, the term diversity has been around for a while. And based off of the first two entries in this series titled “The Unholy Trinity,” it should come as little surprise that the ways in which most of us think of diversity is not what the woke have in mind.
While people some have been generally weary of the term “diversity,” there are some good things that come out of diversity that are worth preserving. Those things include: mutual respect for other cultures and ways of life, recognition of the value in other traditions and ways of thinking, and interaction with different kinds of people to eliminate beliefs in negative stereotypes. The current conception of diversity has gone far beyond these good things that we should value and has become a form of soft totalitarianism.
The first problem connected to diversity is the mainstreaming of cultural relativism, in which no one from one culture can pass judgment on or make value-based claims that condemn another culture. Of course, this is absurd because every culture has something that merits correction or even condemnation, mine included. To believe otherwise is to take the good things of diversity too far. Those making valid criticisms of any culture should be respectful and understand the limits of their own perspective; however, those perimeters shouldn’t force us to turn a blind eye to things like the severe mistreatment of powerless people. Now the rise of cultural relativism would be less of a problem if our societies weren’t so diverse. How can any society continue when groups that maintain their cultural identities and no criticism, let alone compromise, among those groups is even expected?
The next problem is that cultural relativism is selectively applied. There are only some cultures, traditions, and ways of life that must be protected from any critique while others deserve nothing but our condemnation. And we all know what those “bad cultures and ways of life” are: American, white, straight, Christian, etc. The contempt many have for these identities and traditions is a flagrant violation of the principles of mutual respect and the recognition of value in other ways of life that diversity is supposed to promote.
Unfortunately, the problems with applying diversity have only gotten worse. We have moved beyond having quotas for racial (and other) groups, and now artists and scholars risk eliciting moral outrage if they depict, study, or celebrate a culture of which they are not a part. We don’t just have multicultural centers in universities, we have people demanding that white people should not occupy multicultural spaces. Some go so far as to say that white people have no culture. And it is not enough that there are no legal or even social barriers that prohibit people from studying or working based on their background and identities. Now some programs and workplaces will not hire “majority identities” and forbid “hegemonic” and “oppressive” cultural expressions like gendered language (See my prior post titled What’s in a Gendered Name).
What is more, the twisted ways in which diversity manifests itself in institutions like higher education had made the expression of identities, cultures, and ways of life more of an expression of totalitarianism than liberation. The original purpose of diversity is to allow individuals to express themselves, their culture, their traditions, and beliefs in ways that are both self-fulfilling for those individuals and respectful of those who wish to express different cultures, traditions, and beliefs. I see such expressions as a form of free speech that the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects, and rightly so. As such, individuals are free to choose how they express themselves (within the boundaries of legality and reasonability, of course), so we shouldn’t be surprised when members of the same group think about their identities differently and make that known.
The diversity of today is not concerned about individualism. Now it’s all about the group. This focus on the group instead of the individual is actually a new source of thinly veiled oppression that is teetering on the brink of totalitarianism. When the group is what matters the most, individuals within that group become interchangeable. So as long as there are people of color representing certain groups in a discussion on race, on a corporate boardroom, or in a collegiate program, we can check the diversity box. Also, this assumes that all people from the same group generally think and behave similarly. Those who do not face substantial backlash. Just ask black conservatives, gay conservatives, and feminists who do not support trans-women competing in women’s sports.
So, while our society, government, and institutions have become more racially and culturally diverse, they have also become ideologically homogenous. And have most of us noticed this? Take the mainstream news coverage on Biden’s nominees, for instance. Most of the coverage focused on how these nominees are historic because they are the first one of their race, gender, sexuality, etc. to be appointed to their positions. Never mind that they mostly think the same, and many of these nominees are woefully unqualified for these jobs. Group identity is more important than that, just as long as those people toe the ideological line. That’s why the radical left doesn’t celebrate remarkable, qualified people who happen to be black like Justice Clarence Thomas or who happen to be women like Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Analyzing this takes some nuance. I firmly believe that in a vast majority of cases a person’s identity should not disqualify someone from a position. I also believe that it is good that qualified, moral, and good character people with a wide range of identities are able to occupy high status positions in our state and society. And while someone’s identities alone in most cases should not be a disqualification for a position, it should also not be an automatic qualification, either.
The diversity of today only cares about identities and policing anyone who steps out of their identity box. And if only certain identities should get jobs, promotions, and admittance into programs, that doesn’t seem all that diverse. In the midst of the increasing totalitarianism of identity politics, why aren’t we seeking out not only what makes us unique but also what unites us? And lest we forget that famous line from Batman: “It’s not who I am… but what I do that defines me.”
See Dr. James Lindsay for an in-depth explanation of the ideological roots of this unholy trinity: