But Is It Good?

At Tufts University a student-led club attempted formal club recognition. You know, be able to schedule events, use space on campus, that sort of thing. The campus chapter of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship included a requirement that those serving in leadership of the Christian organization must embrace "basic biblical truths of Christianity". Well, such a requirement would violate the diversity and non-discrimination requirements of the school. Thus, in order to remove that particular diversity and in clear discrimination against the group, the university banned them.

You see, there is something we know for absolutely certain. Diversity and non-discrimination are good, and their opposites are bad. No one doubts it. No one. Well ... almost. Because I'm not seeing it. Some silly examples. Diversity in the women's locker room is likely a bad idea. You want women in there, not mixed gender. No one would suggest that a physics course should include English and History and Social Sciences because when the focus is physics, you want ... physics, not "diversity". And if you're really hard over in favor of non-discrimination, I really want visit your store. Because you could charge me $20 for something and I could pay with a $5 and if you protest I'd say, "You're discriminating!" And, of course, you are. You're discriminating between a $20 and a $5. You'd better be.

The point is not that diversity or non-discrimination are bad. My point is that you need to think about it. As the example above illustrates, defending diversity and non-discrimination by eliminating diversity and discriminating is ... well, insane. Think about it. It's like the guy who is yelling at you for being intolerant and judgmental without recognizing that he is being intolerant and judgmental. It doesn't make sense. Or how about Liberty University (you know, Jerry Falwell)? They banned the Democratic Party club because "we are unable to lend support to a club whose parent organization stands against the moral principles held by the university". Oh, now that's evil. That whole banning of Christian groups is okay. Azusa Pacific's banning of a conservative political organization is probably a good thing. But banning a Democratic Party group? Wrong! You see, folks, it just doesn't make sense.

Here's a big one these days: Bipartisanship. With the reelection of the president, the big call is for the conservative members of Congress to lay down and die in favor of "bipartisanship" because, as we all know, bipartisanship is a universal good. Oddly enough, when the Left refuses to budge on principle, that's a good thing. When the Right does it, however, it's "politicking". It's a refusal to compromise. What we need is a compromise like the President gave those religious organizations that opposed the demand that they violate their beliefs by requiring them to pay for contraceptives for their employees. "Okay," they were told, "you just have to have your insurance pay for it." But ... that's what the original law stated and that's what the original problem was. In what sense is that a compromise? Well, it's in the sense that the President called it such, so it must be. Bipartisanship. It's a good thing! Or ... is it? Would we really be better off if everyone in Congress simply thought the same thing, made the same decisions, walked the same path? Or do we need multiple, differing voices to stand without bending when something is not right? Would the left want their side to "go along to get along" with the right? Or does bipartisanship only work one way? From all that I've heard, that seems to be the case. And that's not a good thing.

I'm sure you could come up with a longer list than I have of things that are certainly and universally considered "good", but when you think them through they don't quite work that way. "Equal opportunity" is another example. Who could disagree with that? Well, in Sweden in order to obtain "equal opportunity", a school has banned gender. Yes, that's right. No use of male or female pronouns. You won't find "Cinderella" or "Snow White" in their library because that serves gender stereotypes. The aim is to eliminate gender role thinking and gender differences and provide "equal opportunity". You know, of course, that the opportunity will be equal in only one direction. Girls, for instance, will be allowed to play on boys teams, but you won't soon be seeing boys allowed to play on girl's teams. That just wouldn't be fair! So some people are more equal than others and "equal opportunity", as good as it sounds, comes into question.

You know, sometimes what we think is clearly and obviously good may not be. Do you suppose we're just as confused about "bad"? Why do humans find it so difficult to think these things through? I'm pretty sure you can supply your own answers.