Further Thoughts on ‘Diversity’ and the Ritual Suicide of American Culture

The previous post about Sam’s Club CEO Rosalind Brewer’s comments on corporate “diversity” was 900 words, which is but the tip of a vast iceberg of what I could say on this subject. Diversity is one of those “glittering generalities” — like Equality and Progress and Science — that function in public discourse as a sort of intellectual anesthesia, inducing a trance-like state in which we can be argued into accepting bad policy because any opposition could be characterized as a sin against these vague concepts. Rhetorical invocations of abstract ideals are a sort of counterfeit currency, a substitute for sound logic and sturdy facts, when we are talking about matters of policy that affect the real lives of flesh-and-blood people in a world where the potential consequences of foolish naïveté include War, Famine, Disease and Death.

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse will be only too happy to ride in shouting slogans of diversity and social justice, much the same way as Hitler took advantage of the slogan of peace. “Peace for our time,” as Neville Chamberlain called it after betraying Czechoslovakia at Munich, lasted less than a year before the Stuka bombers and Panzer divisionswere unleashed against Poland. From the day on which Chamberlain proclaimed “peace for our time,” it took less than 21 months before the British army found itself surrounded at Dunkirk. Two weeks after that debacle, the Battle of Britain began, and soon bombs from Heinkels andJunkers were falling on England. “Peace for our time,” indeed.

You might think the lessons of history would teach people to be skeptical toward slogans as a substitute for sound policy, but the teaching of history has been hijacked and corrupted by ideologues in much the way journalism has been similarly hijacked and corrupted. The moral of history, as taught in American schools and universities, is the same as the moral of every story in the major news media: Vote Democrat.

What shall we say, then, of “diversity”? First, we must recognize that it is merely a slogan, which can be used to justify damned near anything in terms of public policy. About 20 years ago, a friend of mine remarked that liberals believe in diversity through homogenization, so that they will not be satisfied until we are all identical and interchangeable. It seems to be the goal of liberal policy to create “diversity” by eradicating every existing difference between individuals, thus to reduce us all to Standardized Human Units. This is their long-term plan, but in the short term, liberals insist that every institution and organization in society must be equally “diverse.” The perfect example of this idea, I think, was the 1996 Supreme Court ruling that decided that the all-male enrollment policy of Virginia Military Institute was unconstitutional. Somehow, it seems, the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment has swallowed the entire Constitution, and this strange logic — which views the achievement of equality as the whole purpose of government — can be traced forward from the 1996 VMI decision to this year’s Obergefell decision making same-sex marriage the law of the land.

Trending: Liberals Attack Cowboy Code of Ethics

Once we accept slogans like “diversity” as a substitute for facts and logic, it becomes impossible to argue that all-male institutions serve a legitimate purpose, just as it becomes impossible to argue against same-sex marriage. Merely invoke the right slogans — Equality! Progress! Science!— and every possible objection is silenced, as critics are instantly stigmatized: Racist! Sexist! Homophobe!

Why is it, really, that we should care who is CEO of Sam’s Club? This is a private corporation, whose policies and personnel answer to a corporate board which, in turn, answers to stockholders whose capital is at stake in the business. One might say the customers of Sam’s Club should be considered, but the consideration of what the customers want is the job of the company’s employees, and of no concern to anyone else. You see, if the customers don’t like shopping at Sam’s Club, they can shop at Costco, and if they don’t like Costco, they can shop online via my Amazon Associates links (and I encourage them to do, as this generates revenue for me, the Greedy Capitalist Blogger).

Is my blog “diverse”? No, because I can’t afford the luxury of hiring the necessary quota of gay black men, Latina lesbians and transgender Asians to pass muster with the Supreme Court. Let’s face it, my existence violates the 14th Amendment — I’m a one-man system of discriminatory oppression — and it’s probably just a matter of time until I’m shut down by the Department of Home Security or some kind of United Nations tribunal. So you better start shopping those Amazon links while it’s still legal. How long will it be before we’re forbidden to commit such a Thought Crime as questioning the logic of “diversity”?

In practice, “diversity” is often a very different thing than the idealistic abstraction its intellectual proponents demand. Intellectuals inhabit places where profit is not a motive and where the normal supply-and-demand forces of economics are skewed by non-market incentives such as the government subsidies to colleges and universties that keep the Higher Education Bubble inflated. Consider the Department of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Yale University:

Drawing on history, literature, cultural studies, social science, and science, it offers interdisciplinary perspectives from which to study the diversity of human experience. Gender — the social meaning of the distinction between the sexes — and sexuality — sexual identities, discourses, and institutions — are studied as they intersect with class, race, ethnicity, nationality, and transnational movements.

What, if anything, does this actually mean? Why do students at Yale (annual tuition $47,600) pursue these “interdisciplinary perspectives”? Consider the chairwoman of this department at Yale:

Margaret Homans has practiced feminist (and, more recently, queer) literary criticism in fields ranging from Romantic poetry to the contemporary novel. Her goal has been to mediate between sometimes polarized views of human identity: is gender the core or essence of any human subject, or is gender mutable and socially and culturally constituted? In her courses and publications on Victorian, modern, and contemporary literature, she has focused on women writers who explore questions of gender, sexuality, power, and identity. Her current research is on narratives about adoption, which raises questions about what constitutes the human in the contexts of race, ethnicity, nationality, and class as well as gender and sexuality.

So the practice of “feminist (and, more recently, queer) literary criticism” has qualified Dr. Homans not merely to teach at Yale (where the average professor’s salary is reportedly $198,365) but to be chairwoman of an entire department devoted to studying the ways in which “gender” and “sexuality . . . intersect with class, race, ethnicity, nationality, and transnational movements.” Most students at Yale are there to study something useful (law, medicine, economics, etc.) and one supposes that few of them pay any attention to queer feminist literary criticism, yet the resources of Yale are so vast (the university’s endowment is valued atnearly $24 billion) that they can afford to employ Professor Homans to teach utter nonsense to whatever small number of Yale students might enroll in her courses. This is what “diversity” means in elite academia, where the faculty and administration exist in a surreal Through the Looking-Glass environment where the normal rigors of human existence never intrude.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”

Margaret Homans is the author of such lively books as Women Writers and Poetic Identity: Dorothy Wordsworth, Emily Bronte and Emily Dickinson and Bearing the Word: Language and Female Experience in Nineteenth-Century Women’s Writing which you can purchase by clicking those Amazon links. Alternatively, you could purchase a samurai sword($53.95) and the book Seppuku: A History of Samurai Suicide ($18.81), because disemboweling yourself in a harakiri ritual would probably be more enjoyable than reading feminist literary criticism by a Yale University professor. The choice is yours, really.

Comparing “diversity” to ritual seppuku might be an interesting thesis, considering how American society has spent decades disemboweling itself, so to speak, to comply with the fanatical devotion to Equality that is a quasi-religious faith among the liberal elite in the same way bushidoinspired the ancient samurai. No practical consideration can be permitted to interfere with the process of conforming society to fit the intellectual abstractions — Equality! Progress! Science! — that are the idols worshipped in the Temple Cult of Social Justice.

“Diversity is our strength,” Bill Clinton said during one of those rare moments of his presidency when he was not too busy having sex with White House interns. It is an easy thing for politicians to invoke such slogans, just as it is easy for Yale University to provide full-time employment for a queer feminist literary critic, but the ordinary American’s experience of “diversity” is likely to be different than the experience of the political and intellectual elite who promote these ideas.

When ordinary Americans see Yale student Jerelyn Luther screaming obscenities at a faculty member, we don’t necessarily sympathize with the target of her tantrum. Certainly, there is no one on the Yale faculty whom I think worthy of respect, for I consider Yale University to be a corrupt enterprise with which no honest person would associate himself.America’s cultural elite is decadent and depraved, and everyone employed by Yale University — and Harvard University, and Columbia University, and Brown University, etc. — is part of the problem. Ivy League universities are evil places where wicked people are paid to poison the minds and destroy the souls of young people. That parents would pay$47,600 a year to send their children to Yale is astonishing. As I said of the Yale-educated feminist Alana Massey:

No Christian would dare go near such an ivy-covered Temple of Satanic Wickedness, except perhaps to deliver a prophecy of its imminent doom, then fleeing in haste before Jehovah sends fire and brimstone showering down to incinerate the foul stench of that latter-day Gomorrah.

The truth about “diversity” and other such slogans is that they substitute not only for facts and logic, but also for morality. If the standard by which people are judged is how their identity contributes to “diversity,” then no white male heterosexual Christian can have any value at all. Yale will pay $198,365 a year to employ a queer feminist professor like Margaret Homans, but under no circumstance would Yale University hire a white male heterosexual Christian, much less promote him to the chairmanship of a department. If there is even one Christian on the Yale campus, this represents a failure of Yale’s policy, as the university is nowadays dedicated to the abolition of Christianity. Of course, the admissions office and the faculty hiring committees have not yet perfected the application-screening process by which Yale detects and excludes Christians from campus. Not every student who graduates from Yale is a homosexual atheist — but they’re working on it.

This brings us back to Sam’s Club CEO Rosalind Brewer, who complained that she “met with a supplier and the entire other side of the table was all Caucasian males.” Why do you think this was? My theory is that the elite universities are so eager to recruit every smart and ambitious woman or member of a non-white minority group in America, that they have produced a shortage of female and minority talent in the private sector. If Yale University will pay a woman $198,365 a year to teach queer feminist literary criticism, after all, why should she even bother looking for a job in the private sector? University administrators promote “diversity” by doing everything possible to discourage men from attending — why do you think females are now 57% of college students nationwide? — and white guys are seeking opportunity outside academia. Ask yourself, would Yale ever hire a white male professor if there was a qualified female or minority applicant for the job? Of course not.

“To hell with Yale,” say the white guys, “let’s start a business.”

Everyone at Yale University shares Rosalind Brewer’s contempt for white men, who lack the one quality — “diversity” — that our decadent elite consider more important than anything else. Neither the CEO of Sam’s Club not anyone at Yale gives a damn how smart you are or how hard you work. If you are a white man, they consider you utterly without value. And if you are not only white and male but also heterosexual, every university is teaching their students to fear you as a rapist.

“Diversity,” on closer examination, is a slogan that is part of a propaganda of hatred, intended to benefit the Democrat Party. It’s like Progress, a slogan liberals use to imply that opponents of liberalism are old-fashioned. It’s like Science, a slogan liberals use to imply that opponents of liberalism are ignorant, superstitious bigots. And, of course, “diversity” is the handmaiden of Equality, the summum bonum of liberal belief, theraison d’être of the Democrat Party. Strange to say, electing more Democrats and enacting more liberal policies have failed to bring about the Utopia of Equality the Democrat Party has been promising voters for decades, any more than did Neville Chamberlain deliver on his promise of “peace for our time.”

Well, you can shop Amazon and buy a 1/32 scale model kit for a Stuka bomber or maybe a Panzer IV tank. Don’t forget to order paints — one set in military colors and another set for regular colors — some model glue, some brushes and other tools. These are some fine holiday gift suggestions for a young boy and maybe Dad, too. You can have fun together, and maybe explain to your son how it was back in the old days, when the leaders of America believed in waging war against our nation’s enemies, before we started electing our nation’s enemies as leaders, so that they can destroy America in the name of “diversity.”

The problem with liberals is that it is impossible to hate them as much as they hate America. Hitler never hated America as much as Barack Obama hates America, and as for Hillary . . .

Well, what difference at this point does it make?

I used to think Democrats were merely ignorant and incompetent, but if they were destroying America through bumbling stupidity, they might occasionally do something right by accident. Instead, we see that everything they do is bad for the country, and this record of 100% wrongness — their consistent pursuit of policies that hurt our nation — cannot be explained except by concluding that Democrats are evil and they are wrecking America on purpose.

First published at TheOtherMcCain.com

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.

Robert Stacy McCain
Robert Stacy McCain is an award-winning journalist with more than 25 years of experience in the news business. He is a correspondent for The American Spectator, editor-in-chief at Viral Read and blogs at TheOtherMcCain.com.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.