While it is true that our current culture is starting to become disenamored with the whole diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) concept, there are still loud voices calling for it. In fact, the fact that companies and universities and such are starting to drop DEI departments is actually a problem on the face of it. The concept is that we need to promote fair treatment and full participation of all people, and, seriously, why would we want to disagree with that? So what's the problem?
Our society has taken a patently good concept, wrenched it from its actual meaning, and substituted ... something else. The earlier "inclusivity" meant that we included those we knew, those we were comfortable with, those who agreed with us. And some rightly said, "That's not inclusivity." So they set out to right that wrong. When the owner of Chick-Fil-A was caught giving some of his money to organizations that did not support the current public perspective on marriage, the DEI community went wild. "That's not inclusive!" So we heard people like the mayor of Chicago say things like, "We will not allow a Chick-Fil-A to be built in our town because they aren't inclusive and we are an inclusive city." Which is, being translated, "We will exclude those who are not inclusive." When a private Roman Catholic college invited a Roman Catholic football player to give a commencement speech and he spoke from Roman Catholic values ... that ran counter to society's values, the outrage was quick and vicious. Silence him. Have him fired. Make him apologize. Because in our new "inclusive" world we will not include those who disagree with our own perspective. So this new "inclusivity" was that we would include those who we knew, who we were comfortable with, who agreed with us. Only now it was with the force of law and/or policy. The old, "I may not agree with what you are saying, but I will defend your right to say it" is right out the window, and we call that "inclusivity."
Consider for a moment. How is, "We will not allow those who hold opinions different than our own to have a voice" any different than, "We will not allow those we deem communists to have a voice"? How have we moved on from McCarthyism, for instance? We are not more tolerant today. We still turn on those who say what we don't want them to say. We still seek to silence those who speak what we don't want others to hear. We may have shifted our inclusivity to a different group, but it is still "those we support" and definitely not "those who disagree with what we have approved." The Declaration of Independence claimed that we are all created equally with equal rights and the Bill of Rights was written to uphold that principle. As always, we humans may have good intentions, but we also have evil ways, and, as always, some are more equal than others. What has changed is "our own group" and not the hearts of men.
4 comments:
I'm almost positive that those on the right are much more tolerant/inclusive of speech which they find offensive. We might argue against that speech, correct the mistakes, or otherwise oppose the ideas expressed, but in general we believe it should be protected. Meanwhile on the left, where they talk a lot about free speech, they are quick to try to silence or cancel any speech that offends them in the slightest. All while telling everyone that its the other guys who want to stifle your free speech.
Like so much now, it's biarro world.
You wrote, “...we humans may have good intentions, but we also have evil ways.” Well said. That is the gist of this entire matter, in my view. It comes back to our inability to properly determine “good” and “evil” through our own faculties, so we flounder around pursuing one (the good) but creating the other (the evil). Our thinking is just too corrupt for us to get this right on our own.
I would agree with you, Craig. Certainly Christians should better reflect tolerance, humility, and acceptance towards others than the general population does (as I commented on Apr. 12). Since love, patience, kindness, and gentleness are fruits of the Spirit, it makes sense that believers would eschew the belligerent and overbearing attitudes and actions of the world in favor of gentle, Christlike behavior.
I think we all agree with the sentence "Diversity is our strength". The conflict comes in the definition of diversity and the goal of the sentence. Diversity of persons and abilities and capabilities has been a great strength that led to a strong nation. But diversity of worldview and origins and ends is not a strength. Add to that the goal in the sentence. To conservatives, the goal is strength. To the liberals, the goal is diversity. If the goal is strength, diversity will be a natural process that happens organically. If diversity is the goal, then strength isn't even in the picture. Strength might happen, but it isn't a necessary outcome.
Post a Comment