“Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” Is the Pretty-Sounding Mantra of Evil

This post may contain affiliate links. Please read our disclosure for more information.

People are naturally endowed with a moral sense. They want to do good, and they want to be seen as good by the esteemed members of the community.

But people are naturally lemmings too. The average person is far more likely to outsource his or her morality to authorities than to develop his or her own moral code. And therein lies the rub. If the authorities providing the moral code are noble, the lemming sense isn’t a problem. If the authorities providing the moral code are ignoble, however, the lemming sense is a major problem—for both the lemmings and society.

To show what I mean by this, let’s turn to the Jim Crow South.

The “Separate but Equal” Mantra

In the Jim Crow South, the people running that region’s most prominent thought-shaping and culture-shaping businesses, non-profits, and bureaucracies (i.e., the authorities) didn’t like black people. They wanted black people to be subservient to white people in every conceivable way.

But the authorities in the Jim Crow South had a problem. They existed in the shadow of two larger authorities that had a lot of sway in the region too—the first being the founding document of our country, the Declaration of Independence, and the second being the Christian faith. And the core beliefs of these two larger authorities didn’t square well with the objectives of Jim Crow. After all, it’s hard to justify the mistreatment of black people when one beloved authority asserts that “all men are created equal” and the other beloved authority instructs its adherents to “love thy neighbor” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

So to get around the inconveniencies of the Declaration of Independence and the Christian faith, the authorities of the Jim Crow South needed a gimmick. And that gimmick was the “separate but equal” mantra. “Black people aren’t being mistreated by Jim Crow laws,” went the pitch. “They’re being treated just the same as white people. Everyone’s equal, of course. It’s just that black people have certain shortcomings that limit their ability to fit in. So they need to be equal somewhere else, away from white people. It’s the only way both races can flourish.”

And the majority of white working-class Southerners, thanks to the lemming sense, went along with it. They were convinced that they could do bad and remain good because the authorities told them that the bad they were doing to black people wasn’t bad at all.

The “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” Mantra

Now a question: Who are the authorities today? Who runs our country’s most prominent thought-shaping and culture-shaping businesses, non-profits, and bureaucracies? If you answered the Woke Left, go straight to the head of the class. And who does the Woke Left despise? White people, of course—especially the straight conservative male component of that dreaded race.

And like its kindred spirits in the Jim Crow South, the Woke Left has a problem. Its authority still has to compete with the authority of the Declaration of Independence and the authority of the Christian faith. In order for it to institutionalize the mistreatment of white people and usher in the era of Woke Crow, it needs a gimmick to neutralize that “all men are created equal” jazz and inoculate the masses from the viruses of “love thy neighbor” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Enter the “diversity, equity, and inclusion” mantra. And the pitch for this gimmick goes something like this:

“Diversity is our strength, and privilege is our scourge. If we want our institutions to be better, they must include a healthy number of people from historically excluded groups. And if we want our country to be more equitable, we must counteract the unearned advantages of the privileged by providing more opportunities for the members of historically less fortunate groups.”

On its surface, the pitch for “diversity, equity, and inclusion” doesn’t sound so bad. Who, after all, wants a country rife with privilege? And who, after all, doesn’t want to help the less fortunate?

But upon further review, the key parts of this mantra are so detached from either unassailable logic or concrete meaning, they’re a manipulator’s dream come true. Consider the following:

• Is “diversity” always a strength? The NFL and the NBA aren’t very diverse, and they’re the most compelling leagues in America today. Harvard’s faculty isn’t very diverse on the ideology front, but the education it provides is one of the most coveted educations in the world.
• But let’s suppose “diversity” is always a flat-out strength. Does that mean we should pursue it even if it means visiting discrimination upon some poor soul? The Constitution clearly states that all Americans have an inalienable right to “equal protection of the laws.” Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that Americans have an inalienable right to “diversity.”
• What does “privilege” mean? I define privilege as an unearned advantage that comes at the expense of someone’s inalienable rights. An elite college, for example, denies admission to an elite student with the wrong skin color so it can make room for a mediocre student with the right skin color. The mediocre student has privilege, and the elite student doesn’t. But many of my commie friends define privilege as simply having an unearned advantage. Someone born to a married mother, for example, is “privileged,” and someone born to an unwed mother isn’t.
• What does “historically excluded groups” have to do with today? Are those from “historically excluded groups” being excluded today? And if they are, why? Is it because of discrimination? Or is it because they’re being out-competed fair and square? Likewise, what does “historically less fortunate groups” have to do with today? Are those from “historically less fortunate groups” less fortunate today? And if they are, why? Is it because of discrimination? Or is it because of the foolish decisions they made?
• What does “opportunity” mean? Does it mean you get to compete for anything you desire, providing you follow the same rules your competitors are obliged to follow? Or does it mean you get preferential treatment?
• Finally, what does “equitable” mean? Do we define it through the lens of individuals or groups? And if we go the group route, should groups always have “equitable” representation? Asian Americans, for instance, are over-represented in the number of students scoring above 700 on the math portion of the SAT. Should their representation at elite engineering colleges be based on SAT results or should it be based on their percentage of the population?

He who owns the mantra gets to define the key parts of the mantra. The Woke Left owns the “diversity, equity, and inclusion” mantra, and make no mistake, they use their cultural hegemony to make sure every ambiguous part of this mantra is defined in such a way that two things result: the mistreatment of white people and the idolization of people of color.*

America, sadly, has been cursed by a long succession of ignoble authorities. Years ago in the South, the ignoble authorities of that region used the beguiling “separate but equal” mantra to snooker a majority of working-class whites. Today, our ignoble authorities use the beguiling “diversity, equity, and inclusion” mantra to snooker a majority of everyday Americans. And the snookering of today is just as tragic as the snookering of yesteryear. Otherwise rational people are convinced they can do bad and remain good because the authorities tell them that the bad they are doing to white people isn’t bad at all.

* To show what I mean by the “mistreatment of white people” and the “idolization of people of color,” here are some recent examples of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” in action:

Final Thoughts

Okay, groovy freedomist, that’s all I got. What say you? I say “diversity, equity, and inclusion” is the modern-day equivalent of “separate but equal”—a pretty-sounding mantra designed by the Woke Left to exploit the lemming sense of the average American and get him or her to embrace evil. Do you agree? Or disagree? Let me know what you think when you get a chance. Peace.