DEI is the left's obsessive hunt for a mythical white whale…

...and the Pequod is in sinking

What do the party of DEI and Captain Ahab have in common? They’re both on a futile yet destructive vengeful quest that will only end in tragedy.

A college student recently shared with me a question from a history professor on a “syllabus quiz.” The question read: 

In your own words- briefly explain what diversity, equity and/or inclusion mean to you.

This set me thinking about how I would answer such a question myself.

Like ESG, DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) is one of the latest crazes sweeping the world of leftist social justice. While the aims of DEI appear admirable, it does little more than try to correct past wrongs by committing wrongs in the present; it tries to atone for past racism by committing racism in the present. It is, at its core, a destructive, elitist, ineffectual approach to education, employment, and governance. DEI is simply a disaster, and evaluating each element can help to understand.

Diversity. America was founded on diversity - diversity of thought and culture. A very diverse group of people came to this fledgling country begun by several colonies. The inhabitants of these colonies came from varying countries, but all had the same goal in mind - to start a new life - and all lived together creating a new, unique culture, a melding of the varied cultures from which they came. In time, diversity of thought turned those colonies into a republic. Differences in ideas led to public debates between those who favored a central government and those who were opposed, and to the writing of The Federalist and The Anti-Federalist papers. In time, through unity in purpose, strength came from this natural diversity in culture and thought. For this reason, diversity of thought and rugged individualism became paramount, and it was for this that the First Amendment was written - to preserve the diversity and freedom of religion, so that each could worship God according to his conscience, and of speech, through which diversity of thought is communicated. 

Advocates of DEI, however, see diversity differently. They see only external diversity - skin color, country of origin, sex, sexual behaviors. Yes, they claim to respect others, and this is admirable; however, in practice, they respect some more than others, and they certainly do not respect American culture or its history. Instead, of wanting a melting pot in which cultures merge in colorful unity, those who promote DEI seek to keep cultures segregated and cry cultural appropriation if anyone steps outside the lines of his or her own culture. Segregation anyone?

Then, in their pursuit of their ever-illusive diversity goals, DEI adherents attempt to force diversity by creating requirements based on skin color, sexual behavior, and other such superficial characteristics - enrollment quotas for schools, and hiring quotas for corporations and government. This is, by definition, discrimination, and discrimination of the negative sort. They believe that the make-up of any organization, whether it be educational, business, or government, based on this external diversity, should reflect society in general. If society is 30% white, 30% black, 20% Asian, and 20% Hispanic, and also 55% male and 45% female, then so should be the organization. In order to prove that they are not discriminating, universities, businesses, and civil services discriminate. People who would benefit from attending some schools are denied entrance in order to make way for others with lesser academic performance or potential because the less competent students are of a particular race (or perhaps because the more adept students are of a different particular race). Companies and government agencies are coerced into, or choose to virtue-signal by, hiring candidates less qualified than other candidates in order to meet obligatory percentages of diversity hires. Objective qualification is out - enrollment and hiring based on non-qualification factors is in. This, of course, leads to weak organizations, because any organization depends upon the qualifications of the candidates it enrolls or hires. The issue doesn’t end with quotas and externals.

Unfortunately, diversity where it really matters - diversity of thought - does not matter to DEI advocates; in fact, independent thought is to be extinguished. Those who rally around the diversity battle call also unite in attempting to silence dissenting views. This became all too evident over the past couple of years with topics such as Russian Collusion, COVID-19, Hunter Biden’s laptop, and the 2020 election. DEI enthusiasts used mainstream media to promulgate the lies of Russian Collusion for multiple years of the Trump presidency, all to no avail. However, if someone disagreed on the topic, that person was labeled an extremist. Likewise, the mainstream media rushed to the aid of COVID propagandists, and social media companies helped to suppress anything they deemed “misinformation,” no matter how well-credentialed the source. The proles would not be permitted to think for themselves. Then, Hunter Biden’s laptop was dismissed as a Russian disinformation campaign, thus, the New York Post saw its Twitter account suspended and all social media suppressed any information regarding that laptop. The last of our examples is perhaps the most extreme - the 2020 election. The DEI crowd insisted the election was the most secure and legitimate election ever in the history of the United States. Despite the fact that even Time magazine pretty much admitted manipulation took place in order to sway the election in one direction, anyone who had questions about the legitimacy of the election was a labeled a conspiracy theorist, a radical extremist and/or a threat to the country. Promoting a contrived diversity based on externals while suppressing true diversity does not garner strength - it creates division, discord, and weakness. Can someone please patch the hole in that sail?

Equity. The founding fathers believed, as they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, that “all men are created equal,” meaning, all people are of equal worth and should be treated equally. All should have equal opportunity to succeed or fail, and favoritism and discrimination should be rejected. The country was reaching a point, and perhaps had reached a point, where progress had been made toward this being reality for all U.S. citizens - until DEI and its progenitor CRT. Now, instead of equality, the noble goal  the founders of the country sought, we are expected to pursue equity. What is equity? Let’s let our current vice president try to explain:

“So when we talk about equality, well, that’s a good goal; but let us not presume that because everyone should be treated equal that they start out on equal footing. So equity, as a concept, says, recognize that everyone has the same capacity, but in order for them to have equal opportunity to reach that capacity, wa we must pay attention to this issue of equity if we are to expect and allow people to compete on equal footing.”

Set aside for a moment the fact that this is a nonsensical word salad. The idea that everyone has equal capacity is utterly ridiculous. Seriously - how many people have the intellectual capacity of Einstein, Edison, or Oppenheimer? The idea that a 5’ 6” man could have the same capacity to play basketball as Michael Jordan is farcical. It would be the pinnacle of insanity to believe a sumo wrestler could be a Kentucky Derby-winning horse jockey. People taking psychedelic drugs are more lucid in their statements than Vice President Harris here. That notwithstanding, the idea she is trying, and failing in this instance, to communicate, is that the concept of equity requires us to focus on providing all people with equality of outcomes, not equality of opportunity. For those who tout the virtues of DEI, equality of opportunity is not enough. No one can have a better outcome than another - well, unless you’re part of the elite; but we don’t talk about that in public. Equality of outcome, as opposed to equality of opportunity, is a Marxist concept. It denies the fact that individuals have different intellectual capacity, artistic capacity, creative capacity, physical capacity, and that no one can level that playing field by bringing those of lower capacity up to the level of those with higher capacity; the only way to completely level the field to provide “equity” is to limit or bring down those with higher capacity. While abilities can be developed through training and practice, each person will reach a plateau at a certain level, and that level will be above some and below others. The equity in DEI is little more than a single-word rephrasing of the Marxist tenet, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Someone needs to fix that crack in the hull!

Inclusion. In some ways, the inclusion in DEI is similar to diversity. The idea of inclusion is that everyone gets to play. It makes me think of some of the more recent developments in younger kids’ sports where score isn’t tallied, everyone gets to play, and everyone gets a trophy. While all the kids may have some fun, when real life hits, the fun ends because they never learned the lessons that actual sports teach. They never learned that not everyone gets to play all the time, and some may not get to play at all or may need to seek a different sport because they have different abilities. They never learned that in real life, not everyone gets a trophy, but the trophies generally go to those who perform at the highest levels. They never learned how to lose gracefully, so they throw temper tantrums every time something doesn’t go their way. Does any of this sound familiar? Of course, inclusion for the DEI cabal is, like diversity, based on external factors, not intrinsic factors. So, not only must the organization reflect society in skin color, sex, etc., management must as well. Everyone must be included. Regretfully, no organization can thrive when such ludicrous requirements are foisted upon it. Many organizations are fortunate to even survive if they acquiesce to such notions. Those in management positions should be there for a reason - they should hold those roles because they have a proven track record of making good decisions and leading others. Otherwise, you end up with Supreme Court Justices who, though tasked with upholding the rights of women, cannot give a definition of the word woman. This too is how we end up with a man who thinks he’s a woman in a position to influence the country’s approach to mental health care. It is absurd, to say the least. I think the rudder just fell off.

DEI is the new Moby Dick of the left. It is obsessively sought and hunted in order to try to avenge the past shortcomings of our country’s history, but the goal will never be attained, and the hunt will leave nothing but carnage in its wake until those hunting it also are by it destroyed. As it stands now, the Pequod is taking on water, and we’re all up to our necks in it.