Monday, November 23, 2015

Victor D. Hanson Tackles Some Overused Words Devoid of Meaning

To be clear, the "D" does not stand for "diversity," one of the Orwellian words he examines:
“Diversity” The noun was rebranded in the 1980s, and does not mean what it by nature should -- “a range” or “multiplicity.” No one furthers the goals of “diversity” by ensuring plenty of conservatives, liberals, radicals and reactionaries on campus, or welcoming lots of Christian fundamentalists as well as atheists and Muslims. The word instead is a euphemism for non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual, non-Christian, and non-liberal. It is a relative and entirely political noun. The University of Missouri football team can both be 52% African-American and proof of diversity, even if African-Americans make up less than 12% of the population -- in a way that all white and elderly Democratic primary candidates are honorifically diverse by virtue of their homogeneous left-wing politics. 
Three other observations: First, racial and ethnic diversity, without assimilation and integration into one culture, and when identity becomes essential rather than incidental to a nation (i.e. a salad bowl society rather than the melting pot), leads to Armageddon, whether in Austria-Hungary, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, or Iraq. 
Second, the word gained careerist currency because of the bankruptcy of the idea of affirmative action, after it became impossible to explain and thus defend racial set-asides. Who can define the proper DNA that makes one deserving of admissions and employment reparations: 1/4 African-American, but not Punjabi or Egyptian? Hmong, but not Japanese? Oaxacan, but not Castilian? Muslim, but not Mormon? An indigent Appalachian, but not Eric Holder’s son? As a result, universities had to lump everybody deemed non-white together as they pleased and called the catch-all result “diversity” -- regardless of class, income, status or history. If one wishes someone non-white to be hired on the physics faculty, then a South Korean immigrant green-card-holding PhD counts as diversity, in a way that his son would not qualify for traditional affirmative-action status as an 18-year-old applicant to UC Berkeley. Diversity lowered the affirmative-action bar and the natural consequence of vagueness were the fantasies of Elizabeth Warren, Rachel Dolezal, Shaun King, and Ward Churchill -- all professed to be diverse, but all without proper certifications of affirmative-action status. 
Third, no one outside the campus much believes in the inherent advantage of diversity/diverse, as least as opposed to united: The Diverse States of America? Diverse Airlines? The Diversity Way? Diverse Technologies? The Diverse Auto Workers?
I wouldn't go giving the diversity mongers any ideas there,Victor. Speaking of which/whom, our Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a huge "progressive," is devoted to "diversity." He made a lot of noise, for example, about the fact that, it being the year 2015, his cabinet would be 50-50--half men and half chicks (of course, he didn't use the "c" word, which is my cheeky anachronism).

Now, that's "diverse."

Sort of.

Then again, if he fully bought in to the concept, he would have made sure to include, say, more trans people and more folks who are mentally challenged (where, for example, is someone to represent the all-important and long underrepresented schizophrenia demographic?), among many, many other identity groups.

No comments: