Diversity: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

There is an invisible beast lurking among American citizens. At first glance it appears friendly and well intentioned, until it is too late and you discover its true identity. Who among the Americans can fight this beast and be victorious? And who among the Americans will, without knowledge, defend the beast that can single-handedly tear down a nation? For years, American universities and business’s have used a recruiting model that has since been outdated (Hanson), but is re-emerging and with a vengeance. What better way to appeal to a group of people than the promise of inclusion or promotion based on your race? Minorities, whether they be men, women, gay, straight, black, white, or purple may win in this case but somebody, inevitably, loses. This recruiting tool is known as diversity. Diversity affects each and every one of us in some way shape or form. If a male and a female apply for a job, but that company (who has more male employees) needs to be more “diverse,” will hire the female employee instead of the male, regardless of her qualifications. This same logic is utilized by universities in the admissions process and absolutely applies to not only gender but race as well. Since the inception of diversity, academic and business institutions have paved the road to sure destruction and war.

 

In 1961 John F. Kennedy’s signed Executive Order 10925 (“A Brief History of Affirmative Action”) essentially implementing “Equal Opportunity Employment.” This was the first time the term was really used to “define” racial inequality. By 1968, one of the finest Americans, Dr. Martin Luther King, was assassinated for his beliefs and his role in affirmative action. For all intents and purposes, by this time in America, affirmative action was dying as well and, thus, was redefined and gave birth to diversity. Diversity in its origins was well intentioned and was designed to be magnanimous and altruistic in nature, but it has become such a contentious topic it could now be considered a non sequitur. Over time, this ideology was adopted by academic and business institutions to promote equality in all respects; unfortunately, this has been confused and used interchangeably with equality of opportunity. Based on mental aptitude, gender, and other physical attributes, it is safe to logically conclude that we are, in fact, not equal in all respects. Everyone, however, has the equality of opportunity to be as successful as one would wish to be. Diversity fails at the attempt to make individuals equal in all respects.

 

In 1976, the American Association of University Professors made a bold statement that began a chain reaction of destruction. It would be this bold statement would be the foothold that racism needed to become the precipice that would cause further deepening of the race gap.

 

The Association is committed to use its procedures and to take measures, including censure, against colleges and universities practicing illegal or unconstitutional discrimination, or discrimination on a basis not demonstrably related to the job function involved, including, but not limited to, age, sex, disability, race, religion, national origin, marital status, or sexual orientation (“Diversity and Affirmative Action”).

 

The onslaught began with the most defining case of “reverse discrimination.” The 1978 case of The Regents of the University of California V. Bakke. Bakke, a white male, was a hopeful medical student who had been rejected twice by a university who had accepted less qualified minority applicants. The school in question had entirely separate admission policies for minorities and reserved 16 out of 100 quotas for minority applicants. The Supreme Court’s decision held that race may be used as a tool in choosing a diverse student body, but the “use of quotas was impermissible” (Moses, “Regents of the Uni v. of Cal. v. Bakke”). This was just one case of an attempt to level the playing field for minorities. Many of these types of cases that reached the Supreme Court have been found that “affirmative action is unconstitutional” (Keeler).

 

In the year 2002 a close family friend applied for the Los Angeles Fire Department. He was a white male in his late 20’s. He was told he could not be a fire fighter for the Department because he was white. His initial disappointment was absorbed by his future success as a multi-millionaire, but the thwarted nature of this lack of opportunity had shed light on an uncomfortable topic. But this is not new! The hiring process for companies throughout the United States is following this same idea. Hire non-whites because educational and business institutions need to be more diverse. Picture yourself trapped in your house while it is on fire. You hear an axe break through wood and glass and a fire fighter appears. What is your first thought? “Is it a white guy or a black guy?” Or “Is it a male, female, gay, or Jew?” Probably not the case. All that should be cared about is having the best candidate or the most qualified person there to save you. His or her color or beliefs should not matter. When a doctor diagnoses a person with a heart disease and will be needing surgery, do you think their first question about the surgeon performing the surgery will be about their race? Probably not the case either. The idea to have and run a successful company is to hire the best candidates regardless of how they look or what they believe. Has meritocracy become the pejorative in favor for the deceit of diversity?

 

To date, American society, companies, and schools have become infatuated with being politically correct (Boven). A consequence of being politically correct is the notion to be diverse to not have the appearance of being racist or sexist. In a study conducted by Cornell University, found that students in the study would say their peers would support affirmative action or diversity even if they do not actually believe in it. This was intended so that a student and their peers would not be viewed as intolerant or a racist (Boven). As time continues it has become apparent that diversity has many negative implications. First, as was argued earlier, it removes one of the ideals that the United States itself was founded on: meritocracy. As American’s we have the liberty to pursue our dreams and go wherever our hard work and good luck will take us. And as Americans we know the importance of as children working hard in school to get into a good college, and as an adult to finish college and work hard to get a good paying job or, at the very least, a satisfying job. Diversity does not care how hard one works. So, if an individual is white and a male and it comes time, he may find himself in a position to be hired as a member of a major corporation. He may be the most qualified person for the job, but someone else may get hired because he is a white male. Who is really being discriminated against?

 

Affirmative action in employment involves active recruitment of women and minorities by looking for candidates beyond informal job networks traditionally dominated by white men… Rather than merely hiring their “buddies” or someone who looks like them, affirmative action opens doors of opportunities for all qualified individuals (“Affirmative Action in Employment”).

 

This is an actual statement taken from North Carolina State University’s website. You can almost hear the disdain in her voice as she describes hiring somebody because they look like “them”. Why do companies like Coca Cola (Diversity Leadership), CBS (Diversity: Josie Thomas), and universities need chief diversity officers and chancellors? It’s a scam and has become a bureaucracy. These institutions and corporations do not need diversity. What they need are hard working individuals. People’s lives have forever changed because of diversity. They could not get a job or into a school because of the color of their skin. An example of affirmative action is Justice Sonia Sotomayor who has admitted that she was accepted to Princeton University on account of her race though her test scores were lower than her peers (“Sotomayor”). This is a person who has the potential to change history as a Supreme Court Justice. She’s sitting in a seat that may have been meant for somebody else.

 

Another negative implication of diversity is that standards are lowered to accommodate those who otherwise may have not deserved a job or acceptance to a university based on their race, sexual orientation, etc. With competition removed, the result is mediocrity or, possibly, less than. For example, after No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was passed in 2001 “School districts and schools are now being held accountable” (“Achieving Diversity”). What does this mean? Students are no longer responsible for their own performance. Another result of NCLB was mandatory graduation rates. Schools are measured by their graduation rates and, honestly, not everyone should graduate. What value does a high school diploma have if even the dumbest person you know “earns” one? This consequences in the birth of a generation where participation trophies and self-esteem are valued above all else and affirmation is sought at every corner of society.

 

There used to be things that sort of “barred” a person from getting in the way of more capable peers. For instance, in honors and advanced placement classes, a student needed to have certain grades, teacher recommendations, and certain state percentile rankings to get into those classes. The federal government, with the help of groups like The American Association of University Professors who embrace diversity, decided that those types of classes needed to be more “diverse” (“Achieving Diversity”). In order for them to be diverse, those requirements needed to be removed. What does this communicate to people? If non-whites are needed in those types of classes then take away the requirements that bar minorities from getting in. “On average African-American and Hispanic students in the 12th grade score four years behind white 12th-graders in both reading and mathematics” (“Achieving Diversity”). What laws like this fail to recognize is that if someone is born with a “disability” or “economically” challenged compared to someone else, those with the disability will have to work a little bit harder to overcome those disabilities. That disability does not determine how much money you will make as an adult. It just means that the person with the disability will have to go a different route and work a little differently than someone without that disability.

 

Here is the truth: diversity was created to level a playing field that will never be equal. What bigger slap in the face is there than telling somebody they cannot do something? How do schools and business’s convey this message? They claim that there needs to be more diversity. Conservatives, who will go on record and vote against social programs or traditionally oppose this type of ideology, are, typically, considered racist. But, according to New World Encyclopedia racism refers to:

Various beliefs maintaining that the essential value of a

n individual can be determined according to a perceived or ascribed racial category and that social discrimination by race is therefore justifiable. Racial prejudice often includes the belief that people of different races differ in aptitudes and abilities, such as intelligence, physical prowess, or virtue. (“Racism”)

Racism is carefully dressed under the false pretense of diversity. To believe that a race is so disadvantaged that it may determine their personal achievement or that they are somehow inferior, to the point that there needs to be a “handicap” to help the “disadvantaged” get a job or in to college is single-handedly the most racist and offensive statement you can make of someone. With diversity, not only white people end up being discriminated against, it could be gay, straight, Hispanic, or Asian. Racism and diversity are one in the same. The issue with racism and diversity is that minorities begin to believe that their race determines their identity. Yes, it is part of their identity, but not entirely their identity. The spreading of racism and diversity causes a clear destruction of a person’s confidence. That person will then attempt to seek a sense of identity by attaching to some group, consequently leaving behind his own rights, and allowing his group to tell him how to feel and what to believe. Because of his newfound identity this person will begin to choose his friends and enemies based on his ethnicity. The supporters of diversity claim that its’ goal will extinguish racism, build stronger communities, and build tolerance of differences. This is a scam. One cannot teach somebody that their identity is determined by the color of their skin and then expect them to become “colorblind.” Advocates, such as the NAACP and MALDEF, who advocate for “diversity”, are the true racists in the definition that was stated earlier. These advocates see the world through “colored lenses.” Diversity forces the focus on differences. Advocates of “diversity” claim that schools should reflect the real world and diversity is the answer. But why would an institution whose purpose is to impart knowledge and develop reasoning suppose to be a demographic mirror of society, particularly the ethnic population?

 

The only type of diversity Americans should embrace is intellectual diversity and the diversity of ideas. But this is a far cry from being sought after. Instead, being “politically correct” and “celebrating diversity” is the goal of academic institutions (Hanson). Abject conformity is expected instead of giving any value to real intellectual diversity. The only way to rid diversity, formerly known as racism, is to remove it entirely from any hiring or admission process. As long as groups like the NAACP and MALDEF continue to reign sovereign over our legal system and its legislators, Americans will never see peace amongst the racial ethnicities. If diversity advocates continue to view white males as somehow being privileged and powerful, when they aren’t (they simply work hard), then the race gap will never be bridged. If we all believe that a persons mind is competent, that we, as humans, possess free will, and individuals will be judged as individuals based on their merits and that one’s identity does not derive from race, America will continue to be a nation based on freedom, independence, and liberty. In contrast, if the diversity scam, a scam that is comparable to Nazi Germany, “Rwanda, and Iraq” (Hanson) whom of which embraced their ethnic differences instead of meritocracy continues, the United States will continue to see a division of racial groups, a surge in hate crimes, and, quite possibly, civil war.

 

Works Cited

“A Brief History of Affirmative Action.” Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity. University of California, Irvine, n.d. Web. 24 July 2015

“Achieving Diversity: Race-Neutral Alternatives in American Education.” Office of Civil Rights. US Department of Education, n.d. Web. 24    July 2015.

“Affirmative Action in Employment.” Equal Opportunity and Equity. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 July 2015.

Boven, Leaf Van. “Pluralistic Ignorance and Political Correctness: The Case of Affirmative Action.” Political Psychology 21.2 (2000): 267-76. JSTOR. Web. 24  July 2015

“Diversity & Affirmative Action.” AAUP. American Association Of University Professors, n.d. Web. 23 July 2015.

“Diversity: Josie Thomas.” CBS Corporation. CBS Corporation, n.d. Web. 24 July 2015.

“Diversity Leadership: Steve Bucherati, The Coca-Cola Company.” Diversity INC.   Diversity INC, n.d. Web. 24 July 2015.

Hanson, Victor Davis. “The Outdated Business Model of Diversity, Inc.” National Review Online. National Review, 20 Feb. 2014. Web. 23 July 2015.

Iasevoli, Brenda. “Making Colleges More Diverse Even Without Affirmative Action.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 28 Feb. 2014. Web. 23 July 2015.

Keeler, Caroline. “The Evolution of Affirmative Action in Higher Education.” Educ 300: Education Reform, Past, and Present. Trinity College, 03 May 2013. Web. 24 July 2015.

Moses, Michele S. “Toward a Deeper Understanding of the Diversity Rationale.” Educational Researcher 35.1, Theme Issue: Moving beyond Gratz and Grutter: The Next Generation of Research (2006): 6-11. JSTOR. Web. 24 July 2015.

“Racism.” New World Encyclopedia. New World Encyclopedia, n.d. Web. 29 July 2015.”Regents of the Uni v. of Cal. v. Bakke.” Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, n.d. Web. 24 July 2015.

“Sotomayor: Affirmative Action Sent Me to Princeton.” Fox News. FOX News Network,     11 June 2009. Web. 24 July 2015.