By: Quod Libet
The rise and implementation of woke DEI has been rapid and widespread primarily in left-leaning fields such as higher education and the mainstream media. Government agencies, corporate boardrooms, and even some woke liberal churches have recently become DEI venues. College campuses are awash in DEI resources advancing their version of woke diversity, equity, and inclusion. Mainstream media coverage and editorials lavish praise on DEI, devoid of healthy objectivity and journalistic curiosity, let alone skepticism. Left-leaning politicians and their agents endorse woke DEI unequivocally, and roughly 70% of people surveyed said their employers offer or require woke DEI training and lectures. A cadre of DEI proponents have taken firm possession of the bully pulpit and although they possess a near monopoly on the biggest microphone in the country, thoughtful American voices highly critical of DEI are rising above the woke din.
“These are not neutral programs meant to increase demographic diversity; they are political programs that use taxpayer resources to advance a specific partisan orthodoxy.” (Christopher Rufo) “The words that the acronym ‘DEI’ represent sound nice, but it is nothing more than affirmative action and racial preferences by a different name, a system that features racial headcounts and arbitrarily assigned roles of ‘oppressor’ and ‘oppressed’ groups in America. The ideology behind DEI is fundamentally anti-American. If we continue to do democracy this way, it will only end in acrimony, strife, resentment, and American collapse.” (Ryan P. Williams) Questions and controversy swirl around DEI theory, its founders and their intentions, its assumptions, its prescriptions, and its inevitable consequences (good, bad, or indifferent).
Naturally, the abecedarian question is: What is DEI? A boodle of its proponents might offer a carefully worded, saccharine-coated, highly euphemistic definition designed to ease our concerns and obscure their designs. It would go something like this. Have a grain of salt handy when you read the following:
DEI policies advance the marginalized communities that have been deprived of equal opportunity and lack a sense of belonging in majority-white settings. Diversity is embracing the differences everyone brings to the table. Aspects of social identity such as race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, age, and physical ability are important considerations that help determine our social direction and requisite measures. Equity involves fairness and equal outcomes for all. And inclusion gives voice and value to the previously voiceless, creating a culture in which diverse parties are invited to participate and express themselves. DEI attempts to establish environments where all people can participate and flourish without reservations about the diverse identities of others or oneself.
Of course, that all sounds good. When you’re selling something, the “pitch” always sounds good, especially if you’re selling snake oil. If the paragraph above was the actual theory, policy, practice, and intention of woke DEI, myself and others would jump on that bandwagon without hesitation. But (and you knew there was a but coming, didn’t you?), closer scrutiny and careful analysis begin to reveal major inconsistencies in DEI rhetoric. When self-righteous preachers don’t practice what they preach, the listener instinctively begins to question their sincerity. Are the purveyors of woke DEI merely harmless do-gooders? I think not. The evidence reveals that they’re hypocrites advancing a hidden agenda, one that’s hurtful instead of curative. That conclusion has fueled a considerable pushback movement, primarily among conservative constituencies, and rightfully so. Don’t buy the sheep’s clothing, woke DEI is a not-so-cleverly disguised wolf reared on radical Marxism.
Ibram Kendi, the architect of Critical Race Theory, (the inspiration for DEI) proposed, “The remedy for past discrimination is present discrimination. The remedy for present discrimination is future discrimination.” “Discrimination against whom?” one might ask. Whites (in general) will be the target of Kendi’s proposed discrimination. Thus, thoughtful legislators, corporate heads, and conservative voices nationwide are declaring that DEI is itself unfair and even racist. The dichotomies of DEI are not minor oversights, they’re not just careless accidents or typos, they are glaring paradoxes way too big to ignore. The word diversity implies all kinds, not just superficial features like race, skin color, gender, and sexual preference, etc. A mix of colors may be all that’s required to achieve diversity in a bag of M&Ms, but a true diversity of human beings mandates a tolerant consortium that includes the like-minded and the unlike-minded. Authentic, unfeigned diversity requires diversity of thought, opinion, ideology, political bent, religious faith (or no faith at all), lifestyle, and of course, diversity of speech.
All of that is conspicuously missing from the strongholds of woke DEI. Can a person be too diverse for woke diversity? If you’re a conservative (especially a black conservative) or you back Trump, or any of a hundred other peccadillos deemed politically incorrect by the woke, you might be too diverse for woke diversity (TDFWD). If you don’t fully embrace open borders, or dare to question the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, or you reside in a red state and vote accordingly, you might be (TDFWD). If you have your doubts about anthropogenic climate change, disbelieve the theory of evolution, or have the temerity to question the urban myth that George Floyd was murdered by cops, as opposed to his self-inflicted death by drug overdose (as the coroner’s report clearly indicates), you might be (TDFWD). Or you might be a redneck.
You may as well assume you are deplorable, in the bumptious minds of your woke countrymen. Therefore, if you pant after the society of the woke, but you’re having some doubts about BLM, CRT, and DEI, too bad, you’re S.O.L. Sorry, you and half the country are just too doggone diverse for woke diversity (TDDFWD) (Too Double-D For Double-U D.) By its theory and practice, DEI “Inclusion” philosophy (the woke cousin of “Diversity”) actually excludes as many individuals as it includes. Is that regrettable consequence evidence of a well-meant, but unintended repercussion? No, it’s a double-dealing, and highly divisive matter of course, conceived on the woke drawing board, implemented and enforced by woke dogma and design.
Serious students of DEI reckon that “Equity” is (in reality) a dissembling euphemism carefully crafted to mask intentions that are somewhat less than equitable. The simple definition of equity is fairness. But what seems fair to college students burdened with substantial loan debt may not seem so fair to the hapless taxpayers called upon by pandering politicians to bail them out. Is affirmative action a fair means of minority advancement in light of the fact that overachieving white and Asian students are passed over and sent packing in favor of lower-scoring students based primarily on their skin color?
Who decides what’s fair is both the pivotal question and a conundrum when woke equity rules the day. Woke equity seeks to manipulate outcomes, but pushing square pegs into round holes requires an element of force. Woke DEI (specifically equity) is that unnatural force. The distinction between equity and equality may seem less than monumental but don’t be misled. It is far from inconsequential. Many thoughtful observers decry the inherent injustice and affront of woke equity. Instead of woke equity, wise observers favor equality of opportunity which levels the playing field, brings out the best among all participants, maintains or elevates standards of performance, and engenders excellence and merit-based advancement. Equality of opportunity ultimately benefits the collective while it benefits the individual most qualified.
Equality of opportunity is what built and strengthened our national meritocracy, woke equity will systematically dismantle it. Sadly, that appears to be the plan.
Who controls the language controls the nation. The political Left understands this and uses artful language to advance their agendas. Don’t say taxes, say investments. Don’t say involuntary, taxpayer-funded college loan bail-out, say student debt cancellation. Don’t say illegal immigrants, say newcomers. For their own purposes, the Left even redefines good words as bad. Take for example the word “nationalism.” Before the woke did their dirty work, nationalism used to mean “loyalty and devotion to a nation, especially a sense of national consciousness exalting one’s own nation and placing primary emphasis on the promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.” Nationalism equals love of country. That’s all. Leave it to the woke left to drag words like “patriot” and “nationalist” through the mud. The word “nationalist” is now wielded as a rancorous pejorative by woke progressives.
Mahatma Gandhi was a nationalist and Cesar Chavez was as well. Cesar Chavez, a labor organizer with leftist leanings and associations fought for the betterment of American farm workers. Curiously, he was deeply hostile toward “wetbacks” (a common term of the day referring to illegal immigrants from Mexico). He favored efforts to halt illegal immigration from Mexico and sought to have those illegals already here deported. Sounds strangely like Trump, doesn’t it? Chavez and the UFW were so against the wetbacks that they formed their own private Border Patrol which routinely discouraged (beat-up) unlawful immigrants along our southern border. Notwithstanding, because of his communist affiliations, Cesar Chavez has been lionized by the same woke Left who now favor open borders and essentially unlimited illegal immigration. In an ironic twist, streets in many American cities are named after the devout, anti-illegal-immigration nationalist, Cesar Chavez.
Barack Obama opined that we are not an exceptional nation, illustrating how the Left seeks to tamp down our nationalistic pride and diminish our national sovereignty to make way for a new multi-cultural paradigm, one without borders or our treasured national identity. Was Hitler a nationalist? Maybe, but so were John Kennedy and Ronald Regan, both of whom history remembers favorably. And by the way, Adolf Hitler may have loved his country, but he was also an iniquitous mass-murdering, drug-addled psychopath, just to set the record straight. Don’t drink woke Kool-Aid. Being a nationalist simply means you want what’s best for your country and countrymen, never mind the Left’s cynical invocations of Hitler.
