American Elephants


Diversity and Inclusion. Meaningful Goals or Pure Bunk? by The Elephant's Child

Diversity and Inclusion are the primary buzzwords today, a catchphrase, and a required means to achieve some kind of excellence that is an end in itself. Perfected, you come closer to mirroring humanity at its best, or something like that. Human resources departments, university admission committees, organizations and clubs, schools and executive rosters, and if you finally achieve perfect diversity, what have you got? Nothing, nothing at all.

Approval, perhaps, but whose approval? If your organization or piece of an organization achieves the exact diversity of greater society will it be enough? Of course not. Diversity and inclusion are meant as guidelines for promoting victimhood. And it is entirely political.

An organization or executive roster that is all white will be criticized for prejudice, white supremacy, bias, and so on. An organization whose people are all black or all brown will not be criticized, because they are already  unfairly under-represented. Being under-represented is only a big deal if you believe yourself to be excluded from something to which you are entitled or something you want. We all get excluded at one time or another. Try sitting down at a table occupied by a group of high schoolers.

Human beings are tribal. The left has tried to make that one a dirty word, but it is only an observation of human nature. We like to associate with those who share our interests, our history, or our aspirations. It, of course goes back to our earliest history when we all belonged to real tribes.

Some are temporary, as a quilting circle, or a dog-training class, some are long term like the people you grew up with, or your high school class. I came up with 8 tribes to which I belong. In most cases the members of each tribe know each other well, but do not know any of my other tribes. None of my high school friends know my college friends, those who went on to college went to different schools. There are lots that were temporary, as neighborhoods, and as a subset of that we had a baby-sitting group in which we traded hours and our kids knew the moms who were keeping an eye on them.

Count up some of your own tribes. You will see that the instinct is quite normal, and has nothing whatsoever to do with diversity and inclusion.

Democrats. thoroughly defeated in the last election, were unprepared for that. They were quite certain that the “working class” was theirs, and astonished at being rejected. They have turned their attention to Blacks, and to immigrants and are encouraging them to think of themselves as victims of racist, sexist, homophobes, Islamophobes, nationalists, and anti-immigrationists. William Voegeli described the Democrat coalition in the pages of the Claremont Review:

Democrats were confident that immigration was a political issue that worked in their candidates’ favor. The multicultural “coalition of the ascendant” would embrace, even demand immigration policies that were welcoming rather than restrictive. The GOP’s pale, male, aging, raging coalition of the descendant would fulminate in front of its Fox News programs, lose election after election, and eventually die off, leaving behind a “majority-minority” America governed by a hegemonic Democratic Party.

The Obama administration was careful to place their refugees in districts where the additional numbers would affect the next census and thus the numbers of  electoral college votes. And Democrats have come to embrace the idea of egalitarianism — not just for people born in the U.S. but for everyone.

The egalitarianism that has come to insist on transgender rights, single-payer health insurance, and ending mass incarceration also requires “treating people born outside the U.s. as equals,” which necessitates  a strong presumption in favor of open immigration. Honoring this basic obligation of justice means that immigrants from such countries as Cambodia, India, Mexico, and Nigeria often earn several times as much as they would have in their native countries. …And if it turns out that the open immigration inherent in international egalitarianism does adversely affect some native-born American workers, international egalitarianism will solve the problem through more domestic redistribution to address poverty and hardship.

Richard Epstein reached much the same conclusions in a piece in Defining Ideas at the Hoover Institution titled “The Diversity Fundamentalists” in July.

Having chosen its members, D&I champions next embrace a message of “fairness and protection to all regardless of gender, race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation.” But rarely do they face up to the conceptual ambiguities and practical tradeoffs that this grandiose statement conceals. Does any organization welcome the individual who is bold enough to reject D&I? More concretely, does D&I make accommodations for employees or students who on bona fide religious grounds are opposed to same-sex marriage? More generally, does D&I embrace, or even tolerate, true intellectual and political diversity? If so, why are there, from top to bottom, so few Republicans or libertarians within their diverse and inclusive ranks?

You will notice that all  that diversity and inclusion quite specifically does not include Republicans or Conservatives or Libertarians. So much for inclusion.


Leave a Comment so far
Leave a comment



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: