Diversity to what end?

In the past 10 years there has not been a BS bingo game in corporate America that did not include the word diversity. It is unlikely however that any of the corporate HR managers who push the concept can actually define the term.

Diversity means the condition of having or being composed of differing elements. A simple example would be a variety as in different flowers in the same garden. It is clear that America is a nation marked by the diversity of it’s people. Most will agree that diversity as a concept is a positive.

But somewhere along the way diversity became an obligation perhaps on the unproven theory that diversity makes the “group” better, more effective or more politically acceptable. This was driven initially by a policy called affirmative action. Businesses are now measured by the composition of the workforce and diversity has become an end in itself. Slates for employment positions were required to include candidates from various groups based on sex, race or sexual identity. This is especially true of college admissions but everyone is careful to avoid the word “quota”. To question affirmative action or preferences is to court an accusation of racism. Recommended reading: Terry Eastland’s Ending Affirmative Action and Mismatch by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor.

Over time diversity has become an entitlement. Failure to include members of the so-called protected classes became the fodder of class action lawsuits and complaints by candidates who were not hired. Diversity became a religion and a divisive issue. Unsuccessful candidates saw the process as exclusionary when they did not receive an offer and the job went to someone that was perceived to be a less qualified “diverse hire”. Qualifications became subjective guidelines rather than requirements for hiring.

But does the left really want diversity? The NBA has a long history of heightism and there is only one active Asian player and only two active Jewish players. Why do we hear nothing about this horrific discrimination? Wouldn’t the game be “better” if LeBron played with a homunculus?

We must remember that the opposite of diversity is university. The faculties of American colleges are dominated by leftists. Conservatives are persona non grata. Witness the harassment of Mike Adams at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington. Adams is an unabashed conservative and at one point several of his department colleagues had obtained restraining orders against Adams solely based on his political positions and as a result he was unable to attend department staff meetings.

If diversity is truly beneficial why are college campuses so monolithically left wing? Where are the conservatives at the Washington Post, the New York Times and most of the mainstream media? How about Hollywood? Is there an innate fear of being exposed to conflicting political visions? Or is the problem that the left simply can’t abide by dissent because the left tends to feel comfortable with authoritarian regimes?

Heather MacDonald has written a brilliant analysis of the issue. Her latest book The Diversity Delusion points out all of the intellectual defects in the arguments that support diversity as a solution to some question that has not been asked. A must read.

So what will happen when the diversity cancer takes a firm hold on our institutions? The answer is to be found in the recent history of the EU. Our European friends have been shamed into opening their borders to a tsunami of immigrants that have no interest in assimilation. The political class has embraced a comfortable willful ignorance of the logical result of their open border policies.

Rapes committed by gangs of young Islamic immigrants are ignored and reporting of the events is suppressed. There are areas where the new arrivals have imposed local application of Sharia law. The government looks the other way. In England they punish people who seek to communicate the truth of what immigrants have done including banning live streaming of public events. Angela Merkel supported open and unlimited immigration into Germany and now she is out of a job. She has actually admitted that her policies have had an adverse impact on her country. How could she not have understood the logical result of her policies?

Several EU countries have passed laws closing their formerly open borders. It is a growing trend and is one of the strongest arguments supporting Brexit. Very few people remember that Islamic armies invaded Europe in the 15th century and were finally stopped at Vienna in 1683. The recent uncontrolled immigration has yet to be vigorously opposed but Brexit may mark the beginning of that opposition.

An example of a policy that was developed in response to the need for diversity was forced busing. Presidential candidate Kamala Harris remembers busing wistfully despite the fact that she was a participant in the program. Today most agree that forced busing was a failure but it did effectively divert financial resources from the classroom to the highway. Somehow that sounds backwards!

Today the diversity policies at American colleges and universities have descended to claims of microaggressions and the requirement that certain individuals or groups should never suffer real or imagined offenses. It is intended to strike fear into the white majority and it has been remarkably successful. Everything becomes an exercise in grievance. The tragedy is that the diversity police go beyond mere discrimination. They want to attack mere disagreement and groups like Antifa, today’s Nazi brown shirt thugs, are their enforcement arm. Joe McCarthy is smiling somewhere.

The situation in the EU is the logical extension of diversity as a societal bludgeon. In 1973 a French philosopher named Jean Raspail wrote a chilling book entitled The Camp of the Saints. The book has been banned in the EU because it challenges the immigration zeitgeist. The premise is that Europe could be invaded by an army of third world refugees. Raspail suggests that the West would not have the courage to stop the onslaught and the leaders of the EU have proven him correct. Can a post-Trump America avoid the same fate?

A liberal conundrum: A young couple is headed out to dinner and they are standing between an Italian restaurant and an Arab restaurant. If they choose to get linguini with clam sauce are they Islamophobic?