Diversity: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly Part 2

Diversity: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly Part 2

– By Howard Sierer –

This is the second of a three-part series on diversity, its value, and its risks to our society.

Part 1 in this three-part series discussed the positive societal gains possible in diverse groups, whether at school, the workplace, or in community settings. These gains are realized as all people are seen as individuals rather than as members of an identity group, as stereotypes are overcome, and as all members of society are given equal opportunities for achieving their goals.

So, if diversity is good, why not require it? Mandating diversity runs afoul of the Constitution, promotes an “us versus them” reaction among the less-favored, and provides a convenient cover for those with extreme-left political aims.

The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment is unequivocal: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States… nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Nonetheless, President Lyndon Johnson’s 1965 Executive Order 11246 required federal contractors to take “affirmative action,” that is to favor black Americans when filling jobs.

The Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action was unconstitutional in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. The Court stated that “The fatal flaw in … [the university’s] preferential program is its disregard of individual rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

With race-specific affirmative action ruled unconstitutional, civil rights activists now champion diversity, encouraging government entities and private businesses and institutions to include individuals with a wide variety of “race, color, religion, sex and national origin” in both their membership and leadership.

Threats to Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms arise when diversity is “encouraged” by publicly shaming and intimidating organizations deemed insufficiently diverse. Any organization without a “chief diversity officer” is by definition racist.

Activists today focus on disparities in outcomes rather than on opportunity, finding that African-Americans lag behind other races in measures like health, family stability, educational achievement, and incomes. In the absence of overt racial discrimination, race advocates attribute these disparities to a society riddled with the purposely-vague term “systemic racism.” For those who see the world through race-colored glasses, racial offenses are everywhere.

Hiding behind claims of moral superiority, activists seek to advance the interests of minorities solely on the basis of their minority status. In doing so, they play on white guilt. With many whites anxious to cleanse themselves not of any personal guilt but of the guilt of past generations, we find far more examples of implicit racial preferences rather than victims of racial discrimination.

A qualified black is more likely to be hired than is an equally or even more qualified white or Asian by a business or organization anxious to avoid public shaming. Corporations are coerced by “diversity consultants” who claim that the only possible explanation for any racial imbalance in their workforce is racial discrimination. A lack of qualified minority candidates is no excuse.

Black author Shelby Steele believes that “our victim-focused identity has become an anachronism. Well suited for the past, it strains for relevance in the present.”

Sadly, we continue to be inundated with statistics gathered by race that serve only to highlight divisions between “us and them.” The liberal media are quick to cherry-pick these statistics to cry discrimination when blacks are underrepresented in any line of work or in any organization.

Despite plentiful opportunities for qualified blacks, remedies for black “victimhood” have grown ever more extreme, giving rise to a new class of black advocates best described as “race hustlers.” They demand drastic government action to ensure equality not of opportunity but of results. Organizations like Black Lives Matter have turned the venerated civil-rights movement of the 1960s into a lucrative racket today.

So, what to do?

In his book “Skin in the Game,” Nicholas Nassim Taleb notes the surprising ability of small but intransigent minorities — three percent to four percent is enough – to change the direction of entire societies. He says: “The most intolerant wins…Yes, an intolerant minority can control and destroy democracy…It will eventually destroy our world. So, we need to be more than intolerant with some intolerant minorities.”

For an example of a “small but intransigent minority” posing a serious threat to democracy, look no farther than leaders of last summer’s riots and the companion movement to defund police. Few rioters and looters were arrested and of them, almost none were prosecuted.

Why? Because city officials were sympathetic to their motivations. So much for the rule of law in places like Seattle where the black, female chief of police resigned when the city attorney refused to prosecute arrested lawbreakers.

Defunding the police runs contrary to the wishes of a large percentage of inner-city residents who want a greater police presence. Cities that have cut back on policing have experienced a huge surge in crime.

Extreme-left political organizations like Black Lives Matter – self-professed democratic socialists – posing as social diversity advocates have shown that their political aims matter far more to them than the hundreds of additional black-on-black homicides that have resulted from their defund-the-police advocacy.

Law Professor Glenn Reynolds addressing the larger progressive takeover of our society writes,

“It’s happening not because anybody voted for it, but because a small but determined and vicious minority is bullying people to go along, relying on cowardice and groupthink to achieve ends that could never happen via majority vote.

“Yet corporations, universities, and governments rush to placate that minuscule slice of the population, trashing large chunks of our culture in the process. These tiny minorities need to be deprived of the thing that is most important to their self-image: moral credibility.

“To defeat woke tyrants, the rest of us must treat them like the monsters they are.”

I’m with Taleb and Reynolds. We need to stand up to these would-be racial emperors who are not wearing any moral clothing. There is no moral high ground in bullying and shaming others. There is no moral high ground in forcing resignations of those deemed guilty of racial slights no matter how minor or how far in their past. There is no moral high ground in denigrating the nation’s history.

Ironically, attempts by social diversity advocates to rig the system by imposing diversity requirements are ultimately doomed to failure. Even genuine achievement will be discounted by skeptics who will attribute any success to racial favoritism.

Real equality will come only from true accomplishments earned with perseverance and hard work. We all can look forward to that day.

Diversity: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly – Part 1

Part 3 of this series will address the progressive political indoctrination centers disguised as universities.

Viewpoints and perspectives expressed throughout The Independent are those of the individual contributors. They do not necessarily reflect those held by the staff of The Independent or our advertising sponsors. Your comments, rebuttals, and contributions are welcome in accordance with our Terms of Service. Please be respectful and abide by our Community Rules. If you have privacy concerns you can view our Privacy Policy here. Thank you! 

Click here to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or a Letter to the Editor