I think it is the people-person (way down?) in me that sympathizes with the modern liberal’s obsession with “diversity.” I enjoy meeting different types of people from different backgrounds because it’s fun. Usually our differences aren’t so contrary that I cannot make a new friend. Also, the portraitist in me even enjoys the privilege of looking at a diverse population of interesting people.
We as a society collectively approve this harmless, generic diversity. Pluralism is something of a prized possession of modern America. It certainly isn’t an inherently bad thing.
Unfortunatly, the term diversity has been hijaked for political gain by “liberals.” In the hands of said liberals, diversity has become an ideal.
To take a term that means nothing more than “variety” and to somehow start emphasizing it as a necessary virtue makes no sense. The reason it makes no sense is because diversity neither satisfies nor breaches a moral standard. It isn’t the same as lying or stealing etc. Thou shalt not steal is a clear standard. Besides being intuitively immoral, stealing is contrary to a commandment given by God. On the other hand, diversity is as amoral as a chair or a computer. Yet, when a member of the cult of diversity has something to say, the sense of moral imperative is palpable. How can that be?
In my opinion it is because diversity is nothing more than a sideshow.
For most people that I know diversity usually refers to the inclusion of minority parties for the sake of variety. Specifically, it refers to either skin color, sexuality, or sex or a combination of the three. But, in truth, diversity has nothing to do with empowering minorities. The term diversity is the buzzword that serves to cloak a hidden agenda. That agenda can be best summarized in the phrase “social justice.”
The funny thing is that advocates for diversity aren’t really that diverse at all. It’s kind of sad, actually. They are very, very predictable — at least when it comes to ideas. This is so merely because they have all bought into a specific lie; the lie that the individual is only as important as the community grants. In fact, an individual’s worth comes by way of their birth. It is not contingent upon the ratio of black people to white people. Nor is it contingent upon their sexuality or gender. They are human, and that is enough.
Whether a provost is whiter than average or not should not be a concern of learned professors. The fact that it is frankly embarrasses me.
“I enjoy meeting different types of people from different backgrounds because it’s fun. Usually our differences aren’t so contrary that I cannot make a new friend.”
I doubt your new friend is very close if you would consider him a “diverse” friend. Meeting different types of people peaks the interest of curious people, but that doesn’t mean that even curious people are really at home with people who are too different from themselves.
Excuse me: *piques
"On the other hand, diversity is as amoral as a chair or a computer. Yet, when a member of the cult of diversity has something to say, the sense of moral imperative is palpable. How can that be?"
I'm going to give a serious answer to an unserious person asking an unserious question here, please bear with me.
Liberals view diversity as an ideal because for about 100 years, from the civil war and emancipation all the way to the culmination of the long struggle for civil rights in the 60s, white supremacy, segregation and Jim Crow were the law of the land. What we now think of as "diversity" was largely considered to be immoral and illegal. Even long after the mid-60s when the legal framework of white supremacy was dismantled, many vestiges remained, with effective segregation still present in many areas of society. So, to many people, diversity represents a repudiation of white supremacy.
Um, yeah doesn't answer my question
__o_:
You’re behind the times, my friend. The most elite leftists argue that white supremacy is alive and well, only that it has taken on a more covert, politically correct form. Even Chris Matthews was recently called something like a white supremacist, and he’s almost admitted to getting sexually aroused during Obama’s speeches. Ever heard of the so-called “white standard of beauty?” Elite leftists complain that our cultural standards of beauty are racist and oppressive. Were you not paying attention during Katrina? The “white” government of the U.S. was called racist for its delayed response. The same thing is being said of the response to the disaster in Haiti. Hell, even Chapel Hill recently battled (or is still battling?) a lawsuit on the grounds that it set up the city in such a way that blacks had to live near the landfill or some nonsense like that. The point is, allegations of racism will never go away. The social doctrine of “diversity” is a doctrine that many profess, but which few practice in their day-to-day lives. And let’s be honest: How many people really seek out diversity in their personal lives?
"The most elite leftists argue that white supremacy is alive and well."
Who? I think many (rational and intelligent and observant) people believe that there is still institutional racism in some facets of our society. I have yet to hear any "elite" (hahaha) leftists refer to it as "white supremacy." Show me.
"How many people really seek out diversity in their personal lives?"
I don't know… why don't you ask people rather than espouse blanket conjecture? I believe diversity has been a blessing in disguise during my time at UNC. I will factor in diversity when deciding on my post-graduate school.
Johnny,
By “elite leftists,” I am referring to, for instance, leftist intellectuals in academia. Apparently, even though you’re the leftist here, I am more educated in your own rhetoric than you are. I suggest you take a class as simple and rudimentary as Women’s Studies 101. If you come out of that class still thinking that third wave feminists don’t believe that white supremacy is deeply ingrained in our culture, then I will assume that your I.Q. is around 70.
Can you explain why Chris Matthews was essentially called a racist by a (yes, “elite”) black professor in an African-American Studies department for his comment about Obama’s State of the Union address? As soon as something bad happens to the black community, allegations of racism are close on its heels. As soon as a conservative expresses reservations about unrestricted immigration, leftists shout, “KKK! White supremacy! Racism! Blah, blah, blah!” If you can’t see that, then you are irrational and unintelligent and not observant.
But let’s think about this logically (and lose the chip on your shoulder in order to do so). If our culture really holds “ideal” white women (such as ones you would typically see in Playboy magazine), for example, to be the ideally beautiful women, this can be interpreted as racist and oppressive against women who cannot possibly attain that standard of beauty because of the immutable color of their skin. Skin-bleaching creams are actually somewhat prevalent in our culture among nonwhites (apparently you’re ignorant of that fact), and this can certainly be interpreted as racist on the grounds that many blacks and Hispanics are not comfortable in their own skin.
Barack Obama (whom I would consider an “elite” leftist) certainly believes that white supremacy heavily shapes America’s culture, as is evidenced by the fact that he was a disciple of Rev. Jeremiah Wright for twenty years and had him marry himself and Michelle and baptize their children.
“I don’t know… why don’t you ask people rather than espouse blanket conjecture?”
Actually, as an amateur right-wing sociologist, I do ask people. All the time. And unless the people with whom I am speaking are ideologues (like you), I can easily get them to acknowledge that they are relatively uncomfortable with “diversity.” Even public schools are segregated according to race, and, when they’re not, they never pass the “lunchroom test.” Neighborhoods are the same way.
Look, America’s population is still very segregated. There’s a reason there’s a black community, an Hispanic community, a white community, etc. It’s because, at the end of the day, we segregate and thereby perpetuate those differences. And there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s immoral in politically correct culture only because elite leftists have arbitrarily made it immoral.
Finally, can you explain how “diversity has been a blessing in disguise during [your] time at UNC?”
Look, my entire point was that diversity isn't something to strive for. In reality, it doesn't really mean much of anything. It is a thing. Pluralism isn't a good. Some good comes of it, some bad comes of it.