I fully support the pursuit of authentic diversity, equity, and inclusion. To that end, I oppose how the current DEI regime has undermined these values.
- D: The current regime values diversity almost exclusively based upon qualities of one’s perceived identity (skin color, sexual orientation, etc), giving them primacy over valuing people for their internal attributes (character, productivity, etc). Diversity of thought and viewpoint is to be specifically stamped out so that people can coalesce behind monolithic values and views. Because true diversity is desirable, we need to oppose the subversion of it by the current DEI regime.
- E: True equity is about fairness (people get what they deserve), but the current regime has completely co-opted the term to fight for equality of outcome (redistributing what people deserve so everyone ends up with the same). That’s not equity. But, it’s worse than that actually because almost no DEI equity proponents actually even care about equality of outcomes — if they did, most would end up with less, not more. Why? Because if all the wealth in the world were divided equally to all people, each person would then have roughly $57,000 (total wealth of the world of about $450 trillion divided by roughly 8 billion people). For many in the DEI regime, equity should force them to redistribute their wealth to those with less until they are left with a net worth of $57,000. If they believed in equity, they already would have given their money away, and those elite colleges would have divided their massive endowments among all colleges and universities. But they don’t, because it’s not really about fairness, equity, or even equal outcomes. Mostly it’s just about virtue signaling with the word “equity” and trying to feel righteous (when actually being simultaneously self-righteous and hypocritical by not actually taking any substantive steps to personally practice what they preach). When it is put into practice, it always results in an undue focus on superficial qualities (we can focus on who deserves what most without blindly following the credo that people automatically deserve more based on aspects of their identities instead of based on their struggles, circumstances, contributions, innovative ideas, etc).
- I: The current regime is not inclusionary at all. It is very strictly exclusionary. If a person doesn’t have the prescribed views, they are not only excluded but risk strangers coming after them to cancel them. This regime is wholly illiberal and seeks to silence and destroy people with opposing viewpoints. Doing so is a form of totalitarianism: in this case using soft power (canceling those they disagree with) as opposed to hard power (killing/imprisoning them — though some states have actually moved into the realm of the latter).
We should seek a liberal democracy. You don’t have to agree with others. You can be offended by others. But that’s what a liberal person does: accepts that people are different, accepts that people may never agree, and accepts that some of our views will offend one another. A true liberal values true diversity, true equity, and true inclusion. The perversion of DEI must die so that true DEI can live.