There has been much tumult in recent months over the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiative. Many have lambasted it as reverse racism while others have vouched for its ability to include those to whom the opportunities to participate in the upper echelons of power were severely lacking. But we must ask the obvious question: is DEI right or wrong? One might push back against this notion of “right or wrong” and argue that it is subjective. But that is not so. We must hold as a nation that DEI must accord with our American values in order for it to be deemed right. And judging from the mounds of evidence, one can rightly judge DEI to be wrong and against American values. Accordingly, DEI must be dismantled and done away with.
What does DEI stand for?
It is hard to pin down exactly what DEI stands for, as many experts disagree on its precise definition. However, in a CNN article about DEI, seven experts have agreed to DEI’s principles in this manner saying:
“Diversity is embracing the differences everyone brings to the table, whether those are someone’s race, age, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, physical ability or other aspects of social identity.
Equity is treating everyone fairly and providing equal opportunities.
Inclusion is respecting everyone’s voice and creating a culture in which people from all backgrounds feel encouraged to express their ideas and perspectives.”
Diversity stands for “embracing” everyone’s unique talents and differences. Equity is treating everyone “fairly” and providing “equal” opportunities. And inclusion is “respecting” everyone’s voice and makes others “feel” encouraged to express their ideas and perspective. Notice the words that were noted in this paragraph. It is these words we will focus on.
DEI and Liberalism
DEI is a typical liberal policy that is hopelessly vague and confusing. This sets up someone to give an arbitrary definition to vague words that suits their interests to the chagrin of others. This practice is dangerous to the American national fabric, as it obfuscates American values for vague ones that could lead to confusion and destruction.
Diversity
First of all, what does it mean to “embrace everyone’s unique talents and differences?” Embrace implies acceptance, and acceptance implies consent. If DEI stands for this definition, then it is forcing others to consent to another person’s differences and unique talents. This infringes on one’s individual rights and renders the business a tyrant against those who disagree with DEI principles. But if it means that one should merely “tolerate” everyone’s unique talents and differences, then one can tolerate something that they can disagree with and voice their difference of opinion. But in practice, people have lost their jobs over comments that might be considered insensitive to minorities. No campaign to condemn their firing was ever forthcoming from DEI advocates. It seems more likely that DEI pushes acceptance rather than tolerance, and this is inconsistent with American values.
Equity
What does it mean to treat others “fairly” and providing “equal” opportunities? Should fairness be a John Rawls-like society where the veil of ignorance is established for everyone regardless of their birth, race and ancestry? DEI is obviously at war with this notion because its very existence wouldn’t be needed if this notion were utilized, so it need not apply here. Or does fairness mean to level the playing field for minorities through affirmative action initiatives? It seems like this is more likely the idea DEI captures. But yet, the tragedy of this is that it commits the same sin it is designed to eradicate. In providing opportunities to minorities, it excludes white men who have worked hard to obtain the opportunities they have strived for. And with this, equality must mean that the amount of minorities and white men in coveted roles are essentially equal in number. This constitutes equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity.
Inclusion
What does “respecting everyone’s voice and make others feel encouraged to express their ideas and perspective” actually mean? No clue. First of all, should everyone’s voice be respected? I don’t think so. Would an engineer who needs answer on how to correctly construct a building respect the voice of an entry level intern who knows nothing or a fellow engineer with 30 years of experience in the very area they operate in? It would be the fellow engineer because that information is consequential towards making sure the project is done properly. Thus, respect is earned because it must be to ensure the work product is excellent.
What about “make others feel encouraged to express their ideas and perspective”? This seems to do two things: provide a crude imposition on telling businesses how to run their business, and make businesses responsible for how employees feel in the workplace. On the first idea, it is very unwise to tell business owners how to run their businesses. Almost always the law gives guard rails on what businesses cannot do, and it scarcely gives guides on what businesses “should” do. Though this notion seems innocuous, it is actually very patronizing and condescending to business owners and invades on their sovereignty. It also puts the absurd responsibility for business owners to control the feelings of its employees. I cannot think of a more demeaning and humiliating way to downsize employees like this. Employees are responsible for their own emotions. It isn’t the task of businesses to make employees “feel” any kind of way; it is the task of businesses to provide an environment that is suitable to work in provided they follow sensible labor laws already in place.
In conclusion, it is palpably clear that DEI is imbued in liberalism. It pushes vague notions that must have an arbitrary spin by others. It pushes one view on the entire masses of people and molests one’s individual rights through crude imposition. This is why Liberalism is so dangerous.
DEI is against American Values
It stands to reason that DEI is against American values. One can find American values stated plainly in the Declaration of Independence. America promises: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. One’s life is protected by the state through laws and regulation. One’s liberty to act is guaranteed provided they follow the law. And one can pursue a path that allows them to attain their self-interest. DEI stands against one’s liberty and one’s pursuit of happiness.
Liberty
DEI demonstrates that it will invade business owners’ operation by imposing initiatives that it must comply with. This infringes on a business owner’s liberty because it goes against the social contract established between the government and the people. DEI is an initiative not consented by America but an initiative pushed by private and public actors that doesn’t have any federal law backing it. There are labor laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that is sufficient to address the racial and gender inequities in society regarding private employment. And this accords to Americans because it is consistent with the social contract, and so Americans have consented to that law but not DEI.
Pursuit of Happiness
DEI demonstrates that it eschews the pursuit of happiness for all people. It favors groups of people over others and imposes crude characteristics to people based on group identity instead of individual identity. The Pursuit of Happiness implies a person with agency, and a person has agency when they act in their own direction instead of the direction of another. If DEI were consistent with this principle, it would not characterize people in group identities but look at them as individuals striving to enhance their lives. The very principle of the Pursuit of Happiness implies equality of opportunity and individualism– cardinal American values. The equality of outcome rejects this notion and implies collectivism, which gropes on socialist tropes. This proves indubitably that DEI is against this American value.
Conclusion
DEI is against American values and it is therefore wrong. We must reject DEI and adopt policies that are consistent with American values. If we continue to champion DEI, we would be bereft of any national integrity to our most cherished values. I, therefore, encourage the abolition of DEI and vouch to replace it with an initiative consistent with American values.
Leave a Reply