By: Quod Libet
What is DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) exactly? For starters, DEI is a theory, and like all theories, DEI proposes a hypothetical set of facts. It’s advanced by a series of unproven assumptions, thus DEI is conjecture which is not bolstered by a preponderance of evidence or by a clear consensus. Besides its theoretical nature, DEI proposes a comprehensive battery of policies and prescriptions, the consequences of which (both intended and unintended) remain totally undetermined. Hence, DEI is subject to doubt leading to skepticism, gingered-up resistance, and a call for debate. Such a meaningful debate is well worth having and must be had. Naturally, there are those who reckon that the far-reaching ramifications of radical, suppositional, and experimental social policies are worthy of a penetrating analysis before the measures in question are embraced, endorsed, and sanctioned, whether by law, by zealous activism, or by a meeting of woke minds.
Contentious, ideological battle lines are being drawn between the paladins of woke theory and practice, and conservative naysayers who oppose essentially everything woke. Some see DEI as a means to achieve “social justice”, but in typical woke fashion, many who advocate energetically for social justice are scarcely able to define it. In woke circles, professing support for an arcane theory and its policies that remain beyond one’s comprehension is par for the course, implying that emotion is the chief woke motivation. In contemporary parlance, these unmindful displays of support are fittingly branded as “virtue-signaling.” Accordingly, such half-baked articulations fall well short of genuine advocacy. Meanwhile, informed parties who’ve actually done their DEI homework understand that gross injustices are required as a means to achieve woke social justice, and thus an insidious hidden agenda is recognized, rejected, and denounced in no uncertain terms.
Are there underrepresented groups being discriminated against? How do we qualify that notion and quantify it? Is perceived discrimination intrinsic to our systems, or do such predilections take a more personal form? Is discrimination institutional, or a timeless evil that “lurks in the hearts of men?” These are valid questions that beg answers, without which the adherents to contemporary woke ideology sally forth with DEI as the untested remedy. Almost overnight, DEI has gained wide acceptance, primarily in left-leaning circles. DEI’s ascent has been a rapid one, but counter to the new woke ideology, there exists a committed opposition that is both popular and stubbornly unyielding.
Those opposed to DEI see it as a “baby and bathwater” proposition, and not without good reason. DEI agnostics simply ask, “Can’t we take stock of the noteworthy progress already made, while we remain dedicated to righting any remaining injustices?” But DEI votaries cite the injustices of the past as if they remain unchanged to this day. This obsessive focus on the rear-view mirror distorts the complexion of the improved road we’re on now. DEI is proposed as a correction, but many see it as a radical overcorrection that will misdirect us from the middle of the road, and send us careening into the ditch. And not just any ditch, we’re talkin’ about the misbegotten gutter on the left.
Fairness should be a touchstone that all Americans would be pleased to unite around. Fairness ought to mend the fences that separate Democrats and Republicans, the left and the right, the woke and the un-woke, and every other tribe in this land where rank polarization is the regrettable status quo. Almost all Americans would agree that where social injustices exist, our national sense of impartiality dictates that they should be properly identified and rectified. That exercise must begin with an investigation that seeks out the root causes and establishes objective facts. One that leads to an accurate diagnosis that distinguishes those basic elements from obsolete social mores, ideological bents, special-interest agendas, and unchecked emotions. Prudent onlookers insist on seeing the DEI cards face up on the table.
Objective observers recognize that woke “Inclusion” actually excludes those who think, speak, or vote differently. The nature of this article should be sufficient grounds to sentence me with exclusion from woke inclusivity. Actually, I and half the country were excluded by woke juris prudence some years ago due to our “political incorrectness,” a term from the recent past meant to disregard and ostracize un-woke nonconformists. That was before the advent of DEI. Now, the threat of further “Cancellation” looms large over the outspoken infidels and non-believers who object and refuse to toe the woke DEI line. While cancellation hushes many voices, it moves some to speak their minds.
Cowed silence is the bane of freedom and thus, the voices of a few brave souls will not be silenced. To hell with the consequences. It’s said that the flack gets thick when you’re directly over the target. But in an ironic twist, cancellation often signifies that woke myths are being challenged, threatened, or dispelled entirely. Woke cancellation is actually a tacit admission that our reasonable arguments can’t be easily dismissed or laughed off. So, go ahead, cancel us. Woke cancellation isn’t a fate one aspires to, but not to worry. Woke cancellation can be refashioned into a badge of honor, to be worn proudly and unrepentantly by confident DEI critics who “know the score.”
No discussion of woke inclusion would be complete without a mention of “Intersectionality.” This asymmetric woke concept is reminiscent of China’s “social credit system” which assigns a numeric score to each person. Points are awarded for various societal factors such as non-white, female, LGBTQI, handicap-ability, and an endless list of perceived determinates of discrimination. The word “woman” has been undefined by the woke. We just installed a Supreme Court Justice who, given the opportunity, cannot (will not, really) define the word. Nonetheless, if you identify as a woman that’s one point for you. And if you’re non-white, that’s another point in your favor, and so on. It’s easy to see where this is going.
If you are a woman of color who identifies as a trans, non-binary, poly-amorous, handicapped, migrant, socialist, or Palestinian confederate; congratulations, you’re Intersectionality score is 9. But if you’re unfortunate enough to be a white, married, churchgoing, conservative, heterosexual, male, you’re score is zero (or possibly a negative number). Once these scores are tabulated and assigned, what are they used for? Excellent question. Intersectionality scores are not without their utility. A high score equates to potential career advancement opportunities totally unrelated to ability and how much clout your voice fetches in the public square. If your score is high, your voice is valued the most. You get your own bullhorn. Your opportunities to speak are unlimited, and when you do, others are required to listen politely and learn from your wisdom.
But if your score is low, you’re automatically guilty of unmerited privilege. No trial is required. You’re unfairly branded as an oppressor, and as such your opportunities to speak are strictly limited because your points of view are skewed by your numerous privileges, and therefore deemed of little value to others. Besides these limits on your free speech, a low score avails one nothing except contempt and withering woke disdain. This all may sound preposterous, but it is literally a woke Critical Race Theory doctrine codified in their writings. Look it up. It certainly isn’t fair and doesn’t sound very inclusive does it?
If you’re laboring under the misconception that everybody’s voice should be equal in a constitutional republic, you’re wildly out of step with the new woke CRT program, or should I say “pogrom?” The woke profess inclusion, but the exclusionary principles of intersectionality belie that specious claim. Many of the uninformed who endorse BLM, CRT, and DEI are motivated by compassion, which is understandable. A select few know the letter of woke law, but apart from those, the majority are far less educated in woke theory, and accept it without a thorough grasp of its implications. Such unwitting acceptance is the norm in woke circles and even in many mainstream locales nowadays.
The BLM website used to feature their mission statement in its entirety which contained their prideful commitment to the disintegration of the nuclear family. Those consequential plans are conspicuously absent in their current presentation. Have they seen their mission largely accomplished? Or did they recognize the error of their ways, and change their minds? Or did they realize that such radical, anti-family agendas are better kept hidden from the general public? Often, the woke play it “close to the vest” because they have plenty to hide.
The BLM founders are self-proclaimed Marxists. If you like Marxists, party on. I don’t like them because history reveals severe problems with Marx and his ideology. The death of tens of millions resulting from his dogmata is all I need to say, “No thanks.” BLM, CRT, and DEI borrow many of their ideas and tactics from Marx. One classic example of this is how the woke focuses entirely on one’s group identity as opposed to one’s traits of individual character. That is a big and unmistakable red flag attributable to Karl Marx himself. In this besieged nation under God, you and I remain first and foremost individuals, never forget it. 300 million individuals are nearly impossible to control.
CAUTION: The woke are following the Marxist template to a T. DEI is a means to control us and cultivate even deeper division. That’s why the woke edict is for diversity as opposed to unity. The woke overlords abhor unity because united we stand against tyranny and against them, divided we quarrel amongst ourselves and helplessly fall. Woke DEI leaders have borrowed from Marx (and Hegel before him) PRS: Problem, Reaction, Solution. Create a problem, evoke a predictable reaction, and then proffer your preconceived, utterly self-serving solution.
There are (and always will be) parties in this country and elsewhere whose purpose is to manipulate and control the masses (that’s us). Pursuant to that aim, Marx advocated dividing the populace into two groups and stirring up tensions and animus between them. Such a contrived rift is created intending to divide the haves vs. the have-nots, the oppressors vs. the oppressed, the majority vs. the minority, the privileged vs. the underprivileged, any socioeconomic disparity (real or not) will do. Then come demands from the unsuspecting public that something must be done. Lastly comes a proposal from the organizers of an unfair solution (DEI) falsely called “justice.”
Would you want your children instructed in this plainly unfair ideology in public school? If you do, your wish is already being fulfilled. If you have reservations about this sort of Marxist/Maoist (same thing) brainwashing, maybe it’s time to get involved. Find out if DEI, CRT, and other woke tenents are being taught to your impressionable children. And if you object, educate yourself, and organize an army of squeaky wheels. Your (our) apathy and acquiescence are exactly what the woke are counting on. Consequently, your active, in-person intervention is essential. Otherwise, DEI (actually Division, Envy, and Intolerance) will become the mainstream order of the day.
A deep analysis reveals that DEI’s founders and their agenda-driven ideological aims run counter to traditional American values. And their hypocrisy coupled with their use of deceptive language has further uncovered a dark side in their message and means. Notwithstanding, I harbor no ill will toward the woke rank and file. My beef is not with my fellow countrymen who perceive social injustice, and fancy this woke idea as the solution. I believe that there are many fine people who favor Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. DEI does sound good, but effective marketing has a way of making really bad ideas sound really good, like how the serpent made the fruit sound really good to Eve.
I and many others are of a mind that DEI is a bill of goods that’s been artfully promoted to our well-meaning but unsuspecting neighbors, family, and friends. Again, my criticism and objection is directed at the baleful flaws of DEI and its duplicitous creators whose agenda is at once unsound, ruinous, and poorly hidden. The pandora’s box that is DEI becomes clearly evident to conscientious students of history who are willing to investigate it for themselves. Thus, our concerns are entirely legitimate. Does DEI accomplish what it purports to, or not? Is it possible that it does more harm than good? These are very important questions that are fair and deserving of informed answers. All I ask is that we keep cool heads and open minds while we humbly endeavor to make these determinations together.
Peace, Quod Libet
