In the world of human resources and personal relationships, we hear the term diversity. Diversity is a popular word in the vocabulary of millennials, academics, media, entertainment, government and corporate structures.

Merriam-Webster defines diversity: “The condition of having or being composed of differing elements.” Merriam-Webster also includes the synonym, “Variety.” In the body of the diversity definition. Variety as Webster want us to think is “especially: the inclusion of different types of people (such as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #60 had this to say about diversity. “There is sufficient diversity in the state of property, in the genius, manners, and habits of the People of the different parts of the Union to occasion a material diversity of disposition…”

Is the word “Diversity” innocuous or is it intimidating? Does “Diversity” bring us together or segregate people?

Note that in Hamilton’s description of diversity, none of the attributes he list are associated with sex or race.

Diversity, as used in the context of today’s culture, is entirely about sex and race. Diversity, as used by the Left, is a hammer against the common purpose of America, a vehicle to advance multiculturalism and identity politics, further dividing Americans.

As Matthew Continetti writes in the November 2017 issue of Imprimis, the left needs “an ethno-racial struggle, a ceaseless competition between victimizer and victim, oppressor and oppressed.” Add sexual orientation, and you have a powerful tool to beat the so-called victimizer and oppressor. Any doubt in today’s culture who the victimizer and oppressor represent? Conservatives and those who believe in an individual’s rights.

There are only two sexes and six skin colors. Compare that to the billions of human minds, the true measure of diversity. Lady Justice wears a blindfold, signifying impartial judgment. We should not peak under the blindfold; we should not seek a phony measure of diversity in the pop culture of academia, media, entertainment, government or corporate structures.

Say yes to the diversity of the human mind and a common purpose for America.


13 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. kwtreemamajama55 says:

    So the next Somali, gay / trans  or female truck driver applying to your company will be judged solely on the content of their character and "diversity of mind", right? Plus their driving record and truck handling skills. ….Sure, he / she will.

    There is no need for non-discrimination laws, because all of you right wing white guys are perfectly fair and open to everyone.  There is perfect equality of opportunity in this country. There is no income gap, no hate crimes, no prejudice – that's all a fantasy of the horrible Left.

    You, and those like you, would never  preferentially hire or rent to a white Christian heterosexual male over someone with different attributes, because you don't discriminate. In fact, you're a victim of discrimination.

    Is that about how you see things, Pear?

    • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

      You are projecting your prejudice. In fact I have hired qualified black Americans, I have hired females, I have hired a gay Native American, I have hired Americans who are Hispanic. I have hired lots of people, unfortunately not all possess the qualities to be successful, safe drivers. Who I hire is not based on skin color or any other diversity attributes. I hire people can safely go down the road with out killing you, your family or friends and those who can bring value to the company. I’m sure you would want it to be otherwise, but that’s what most business people do, who want to stay in business. In this area you don’t know what you are talking about.

  2. JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

    Powerful Pear: You say "Diversity, as used in the context of today’s culture, is entirely about sex and race."

    Actually, no, that isn't the extent of diversity. The University of Colorado, for example, says "We strive to be a diverse campus, welcoming students of all ages, ethnicities, gender, location, and sexual orientation." In addition, the University has an approach to diversity that includes a consciousness of inclusion of those with physical or learning challenges, varied ideological commitments, and diverse academic interests.

    And I don't think it fair to say the left needs “an ethno-racial struggle, a ceaseless competition between victimizer and victim, oppressor and oppressed.” At least, no fairer than to say the right needs a neglect of historical oppression, colonialism, and patriarchy in order to maintain systemic privileges.

    • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

      Your argument then would be that diversity is to segregate people. I would put forth that the CU approach is to make sure all the boxes are checked so it looks good to parents, alumni and accreditation offices. I’ve heard that no two people are the same, so why the effort to classify people into phony attributes?

      • JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

        On the contrary, Powerful Pear … lots of institutions monitor diversity to make certain a broad sweep of people are included. Unless you KNOW who is there, it is extraordinarily easy to overlook absence. American society did that with "disabled" people for a very, very long time. Unseen in society, so we didn't know we needed to think about how to include them.

        And believe me … those wheeling about in chairs are not there because of "phony attributes."

  3. Conserv. Head Banger says:

    Regarding Matthew Continetti's comment about the far left needing a struggle……   the same can be said for the far right.

    After the Cold War ended in the early 1990s, the military-industrial complex needed a new enemy. 9/11 was a big help because we went into Afghanistan, a quagmire that neither the British nor the Russians could solve in their day (altho the Afghanistan venture was justified). However, Iraq was not. And these days, the Complex has China and Iran to squabble about, justifying their massive expenditures.

  4. ajb says:

    You quote Continetti, who blames the left for:

    “an ethno-racial struggle, a ceaseless competition between victimizer and victim, oppressor and oppressed.”

    We have a chief executive in this country who does this on a daily basis. Have you scanned the comments in a right-leaning blog like redstate? Commenters are always lamenting their victimhood. Their complaints are always caused by someone "different". 

    And as admirable as your hiring proactices may be, there are lots of studies that show that hiring managers tend to choose the candidates that look and act like themselves. [I don't have time to go look them up right now, but you know how to use google as well as I do]. 

    I find your argument unconvincing. We have a situation where white men (like myself) control the levers of power and tend to perpetuate that state. It may not even be malicious, but it certainly results in a tilted playing field. Without shining a light on this, it will never change. 

    • DavieDavie says:

      The best illustration of the tilted playing field (h/t Michael Bowman for posting this first a while back)



    • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

      Did you ever stop to think that white men like yourself and hiring managers who have power have it for a reason. That reason is not to oppress any person but to deliver on the responsibilities delegated to achieve the goal or purpose. Deliver on the goals and objectives or soon your job is given to someone else. Only in government and the non profit world can you get away with not delivering on the continuity of purpose. 

      Stop checking boxes on diversity and hire the mind, no matter gender, race or other attributes. The world will be better off.

  5. kwtreemamajama55 says:

    Well, Pear, I helped you get some comments on your diary.

    Your version of history is skewed by authors claiming white victimhood and endangerment. Fear not, European Americans will continue to dominate the world economy for years to come, although the riches never “trickle down” as advertised. So…. we won’t agree.

    I can only tell you my lived experience. As a girl growing up in the 60s, I understood that some careers were not open to me. Chemistry, science, scholarship, the life of the mind, construction, being a business tycoon….there weren’t any models that showed those choices as anything but temporary diversions while women schemed to “catch a man”.  Being educated was fine and dandy, but housewifery was my approved destination. 

    My mother, an Austrian refugee from the Anschluss, had  her education interrupted for decades and finally returned to school in her 40s, was hired by the CCRC and retired from there. So I did finally have that role model – and the women’s movement of the 60s and 70s opening up new options. I saw liberal arts majors waiting tables, and decided I wasn’t going to take the education route yet.

    I got construction jobs because of class action lawsuits and found that “non-traditional jobs” actually paid a living wage. For that, I could put up with the harassment, the come-ones, the rude jokes, all that shit…this was before anyone was really committed to “diversity”. 

    And I was a white, middle class girl – at least, I wasn’t automatically suspected of being a criminal, lazy, or stupid because of my skin color, or what my father did for a living.

    whatever…. you probably could care less. But I do know that I and so many others owe huge debts to those who did break that ground, put up with much worse than I had to, sued and won court battles, to actually create this norm and ideal of “diversity” which you have such contempt for.

    Without those battles, girls could still only dream small domestic dreams, and people of color would all still be relegated to menial, dead end jobs.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.