Defeating Itself, Destroying Society
By Jay Haug
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/the_diversity_movement_defeating_itself_destroying_society.html#ixzz2JWMQwOxj
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
In a large study of nearly 30,000 people across the country, Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone, has shown some highly negative results from “diversity.”
Michael Jonas, in an article called “The Downside of Diversity,” published in Boston.com in 2007, encapsulated Putnam’s research as follows:
[T]he greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogeneous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.
But the diversity-peddlers rarely tell us about any downside. In the case of gay marriage, is it just a net addition with no subtraction, no negative? Is it, as some would say, “all good”? Is this all about reactionaries keeping others from “people they love”? Or could the issues be real and substantive?
This past week, the Obama administration has disinvited a pastor, Louie Giglio, from speaking at the upcoming inauguration. Why? Because Giglio was discovered to have given an “anti-gay” sermon, and, as the administration puts it, his words “don’t reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this Inaugural.” Have we come to the place in our country where one must toe the line or not be allowed to speak? By focusing on outward differences in college admissions, are we simply doing the easy work, instead of promoting diversity of background, income, and intellectual perspective? Are we sufficiently protecting freedom of speech and freedom of religion in the face of the diversity agenda?
The truth is that the diversity movement has problems, and those who tout it must acknowledge them now — before this invented concept makes us all less free, less honest, and less educated.
Here are a few reality checks for the age of diversity. It is time to ask: after all the diversity initiatives, what have been the results?
1.College campuses are less tolerant than ever before.
One result is that real debate and dialog suffer. The Atlantic’s Wendy Kaminer explains why.
One of the ironies of this drive for civility … [is that] you end up encouraging incivility, because people don’t know how to argue. They don’t know what to do when confronted with an idea they really don’t like. They don’t have an administrator they go complain to, and so they just shout it down because they haven’t learned how to do anything else.
Perhaps also due to the like-minded aspects of the blogosphere, people do not know how to respectfully argue their points of view. Shouting matches are too often the order of the day on the same campuses that embrace “diversity.” Conservative speakers are often not invited to campus, or else they are shouted down or interrupted. In fact, in America today, almost all protests that interrupt or shout down speakers are generated by left-wing groups like Code Pink.
Too many campuses choose to wall themselves off from differing ideas through anti-bullying or speech codes that attempt to provide an ipso facto restraint on speech. As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has put it, too often “speech I don’t like” is translated into “speech that should be outlawed.”
2. People who hold traditional views on marriage and other issues are wrongly dismissed as bigoted, homophobic, or in need of being cured.
This has been the downside to what I call “liberal inevitability” from the start. Just as the 12 Steps work “sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly,” too many liberals believe we will all come around to their views eventually. In their view, conservatives ought to be cured and will be eventually. When looking at Supreme Court justices, liberals could be right. Most of them do cave in some manner. But, thankfully, Potomac fever tends to be a local disease, and liberalism has been shown to be far from inevitable in other places.
Unlike today, decades ago, liberals asked to be listened to and given the opportunity to state their case. When I was a college student, I remember reading the story in our student paper of a gay student coming out about his sexuality. I remember thinking that writing that article took courage and that I ought to try to understand him. But now the tables have turned, and anyone who thinks differently from this student is considered an oppressor, ignorant, or morally deficient.
Recently, my alma mater, Williams College, conducted a celebration of one of its most distinguished political science professors, Robert Gaudino, who died at the age of 46 in 1974. The distinguishing characteristic of Gaudino’s teaching style was the Socratic method — his uncanny and disciplined style of teaching through asking questions. Another student and I who were both exposed to Gaudino’s teaching methods discussed recently whether Gaudino was a liberal or a conservative. The truth is, neither of us knew. The reason is because Mr. Gaudino believed that his calling was to teach and help us to think, not reach certain predetermined conclusions. This singular commitment made him a celebrated teacher — the kind we find all too rare today.
Unfortunately, too many teachers today use the classroom for indoctrination rather than education. At our local state university, story after story has come to me concerning professors bashing conservatives in the classroom, politically intimidating students, and even lowering grades for those who do not support politically correct conclusions. (This is not to be confused with conservative students who simply write bad papers that fail to support their arguments.)
But most disturbing in the light of diversity initiatives are students who view others who disagree as being sick, evil, or homophobic. A friend of mine has two sons, one of which attended an elite college in the Northeast. My friend is a tolerant, intelligent, and graceful person who happens to embrace traditional values regarding marriage. Do his sons agree to disagree with him and keep talking? No — they somehow believe that his soul must be healed, his reactionary views rejected, and his thinking returned to acceptable norms. If this is the fruit of “diversity” training, it is bad fruit. Can a person graduate from an elite college and never learn respect for others who disagree? Too many do today, and it is a bad predictor for the much-sought after “civility.”
Liberals might make the counter charge that conservatives believe they too are sick and in need of being cured. However, most conservatives seek to persuade liberals, not cure them. Conservatives want liberals to examine the consequences of their beliefs and policies and reconsider them. Do liberals need to change their minds? Yes. But conservatives are more than willing to debate them on the issues on a level playing field. Too many on the left these days believe they own the playing field.
But it is the colleges and universities themselves who hold up “homophobia” as the problem. Defined as such, people who disagree with gay marriage are not worthy to be listened to. Instead, they are in need of a psychological cure. The word “homophobia” belies liberal tolerance and mocks pleas for “diversity.” Liberals themselves should get rid of it once and for all. The fact that they have not done so is testament to their preference for clubs rather than arguments.
3. Embracing diversity in household formation blinds us to the reality that children of lasting man-woman marriages fare best.
The diversity movement will protest that there simply is not enough research on non-traditional families to say what the impact on children might be. But what we do know is clear. Gay-parent households deprive children of a parent of the opposite sex. Children from families where the mother and father stay together are significantly more well-adjusted, confident, and adaptable than those who do not come from these families. Too often, diversity advocates focus on the well-being of couples while ignoring the impact on children. If the diversity movement says it wants to empower the powerless, shouldn’t it be concerned about the impact of its policies on children? Shouldn’t social policy show bias toward what works best and keeps the most vulnerable from being hurt? Or is the desire for same-sex adults to call their relationship “marriage” more important?
4. The diversity movement confuses rejection of views with rejection of people, shutting off debate.
My niece was fifteen years old. She had been home-schooled until the time she entered a nearby New England prep school as a day student. Her parents had taught her how to think. Soon after she entered the school, my niece was asked to join a group to plan student activities on campus, including the task of deciding guidelines of how debate was to be framed on campus. Someone put a motion on the table that read as follows: “All points of view are to be respected.” My niece proposed a change. “All people are to be respected.” “Not all points of view are worthy of respect,” she asserted. Her motion passed unanimously. Her fellow students immediately appreciated the difference between people and views, and they were right to do so.
Formally, in the days when people knew how to debate, the Oxford-Cambridge style was the order of the day. Ideas could be mocked, pilloried, demolished, propagated, and prosecuted as self-evident. People actually learned things. Nothing was off the table. After the debate, it was time to head to the pub.
Unfortunately, the diversity movement has wrapped itself in the wrong-headed idea that “I am my views.” This tends to place people of color, the LBGT crowd, and others claiming non-white ethnic heritage in a privileged position beyond criticism. In their eyes, everything becomes an ad hominem attack and is therefore out of bounds. The results are clear: why does one need an argument when, like Senator-Elect Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, demonstrating that one is 1/32 Cherokee is enough? The result of this has been bad ideas like “black people cannot possibly be racist” and “because I am gay, you cannot criticize gayness in any way.”
Now admittedly, some of this reaction has been precipitated by actual ad hominem attacks. These have been generated by both sides. But in any argument, people who are disciplined ought to be ready for these, call them out, and show them the door. A reasonable audience will support ruling out these attacks in most cases. But the result of this “I am my argument” false shield has been an irrational cutting off of dialog and reason and learning. In all debate, thinking must be encouraged while feelings must be controlled. To do the reverse is to invite ignorance, not clarity.
5. Diversity as it is proclaimed is fundamentally dishonest.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/the_diversity_movement_defeating_itself_destroying_society.html#ixzz2JWMJTWUG
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Diversity….how they have destroyed the meaning of the word. What they want is the exact opposite of the definition of the word.
We are called upon to be stones; big stones, little stones, fat stones, thin stones…none exactly alike, all different, all relevant. But, since the Tower of Babel all manmade systems are designed to try to shape mankind into bricks…all alike; herd think so much easier to control. It NEVER works, because that is not the way mankind was/is made. That’s why it never works and so many people have to die to try to accomplish the herd think.
That is why, my fellow stones….we are dangerous to the brickmakers! 🙂
At the college at which I teach, lowlife terrorist Bill Ayers has been paid to come and speak more than once, and at least once as part of the “exemplary lives” program. The small college had a shot at having Condoleezza Rice as the commencement speaker. The college’s faculty senate shot it down. I pride myself on bringing this up any time I hear another plea on the campus for the need to value diversity. Intellectual diversity is to the typical college campus what World Series titles are to the Chicago Cubs.
I teach at a large university and have been subjected to both well paid anti-Americans, Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. Both essentially endorse MURDER of their enemies. In one of Ayers rants, he condemned ALL Conservatives as (you guessed it) racists, bigots and homophobes. He clearly stated that when the “revolution” is concluded and we have a “Peoples” government in Washington, it will be necessary to eliminate, either by incarceration or liquidation, “the reactionary elements” in the US. When pressed in the Q & A session, he labeled “reactionaries” as anyone who refuses to accept the doctrines, policies and directives of the “revolutionary government.” Wright, on the other hand, believes in a separate nation for Blacks. A nation supported by the (you guessed it) racists, bigots and homophobes in the other country, the one that will be forced to support the Black nation. These men are considered “progressive” in their thoughts and words. Conservatives, any one of them are considered “Enemies of the People.” Ayers and Wright represent “diversity” at my university.
The author has missed – or ignored – an essential element of the faux “diversity” meme – and its would-be elevation to the ranks of core values such as integrity and truth:
“Diversity”, here, very often and very simply stands for “Too many White men” – or, as the case may be, “Too many (East) Asians” or otherwise not fitting into the desired politico-social engineering mold du jour.
Nobody complains when all – or nearly all – are members of the “favoured” or “protected” political class, read “all black” or “all women”…
The ersatz “rainbow” works only when it works in the desired direction…
You summed it up well. The actual article was too long and never clearly made this point. The term “diversity” is what Liberals call a “dog whistle”. What they really are saying is that they want to eliminate traditional values and replace them with “progressive” values. Progressives don’t respect traditional viewpoints, but they demand that their views be respected.
Liberals and conservatives both know that the progressive goal is to grow government and shrink the private sector. Diversity is just another mechanism that helps them to accomplish this. Diversity provides the justification to hire and promote people who will support the liberal agenda and ignore those who won’t. It also helps to break down traditional structures and morals that made the old America into the greatest country on earth. Liberals have almost made old America disappear and have replaced it with Amerika.
Pavan – you summed it up well !!! And evidence is on the front page of the NYTimes every day of the week. Too many of us expect a Hitler, when actually it is just Tony Blair, and it just goes under the radar. Then we wonder what happened.
There are lots of criticisms to make of Hitler, but that’s no reason to accuse him of things he never did, or wanted to do. Hitler and the Nazis were brought to power to defeat the Left and it’s war on everything German (referred to as the hyper-degenerate ‘Weimar culture’). Today it’s referred to as the Hollywood/academia/MSM/Progressive/East-Coast cabal. Interestingly, both movements were initiated, funded, led, and defended by the same people (think CPUSA, ACLU). Hitler was devoted, albeit delusionally at times, to defending and advancing the interests of his people (Germans) against other peoples. Leftists, here, there, everywhere, are always trying to destroy existing societies. Leftists in the US are devoted to abolishing American society, and either killing or subjugating as many Americans as possible. With the examples of the USSR, Maoist China, Cuba, and Cambodia before us, denial of this basic fact cannot be honest.
When culture of cancer is the norm, it calls anti agents hyper-phobics. It can’t defend its substance, so it uses the only thing it’s got: toxic spewing and name-calling deconstruction. What will it do when it consumes all its hosts? Well, it has an answer for that: That’s just discredited slippery-slope thinking. How “mean” to be against the progress of the culture of cancer! Cultural cancer is the new power to the people, brought to you by its own secular priesthood for crony, ba*l crunching cannibals.
”Diversity” is but another arrow in the leftist/Marxist quiver.
It is a device wielded to destabilise and to debase the traditional order which is based in part on industry and on merit – and to replace this order and its time-honoured, inherited, foundational values with ersatz substitutes which further leftist transformative purposes.
The narrative and the lexicon are commandeered to yield but superficial Skin-and-Gender substitutes – which lead ineluctably and predictably to tokenism, bean-counting and quotas – and to mediocrity.
The ”diversity” meme is part of an invidious and dubious programme which is comprised of strategically crafted constructs and narratives designed to disequilibrate and then to topple our traditionally honoured and time-proven values.
I don’t think we are allowing our nation to go down the tube. Slowly but surely, the Old America that still lives within us will be re-established in much of the “red states,” geographically and culturally.
“America” won’t look the same on a map, but it will be there. There is an evolutionary process abuilding… it will take a while, but when it’s done, birds of a feather will be flocking together. The recent reaction to tyrannical gun control threats is just another bubble in a pot that will boil over into incipient race/culture war, and when the dust settles, hopefully just short of overt action, boundaries will change, people will vote with their feet, and people of different cultures will feel at home with themselves.
And we won’t be supporting them with our tax money.
Homosexuality is a psychosexual disability. Our society is kind to the disabled and tries to help them compensate for their bad luck but up to now, it has not done so to the point of harming itself and its young as legitimizing gay marriage does. Society’s error has been accepting the gay activist argument that they are a variant of normal and their civil rights are being violated by denial of legal marriage. They are not a variant of normal but have a disability that impacts on their own lives and society’s.
“diversity” comes from the word diverse. see where we’re going with this? the word “UNITE, MERGE, BLEND, CONVERGE, etc. are not listed as synonyms. … … here are some synonyms right out of a few e-dictionaries: dissimilarity, heterogeneity, variance, … … some more: adverse, antithesis, comparison, contradiction, contradistinction, contraposition, contrariety, differentiation, disagreement, disparity, dissimilarity, distinction, divergence,incompatibility, incongruousness, inequality, inverse, oppositeness, opposition, reverse, unlikeness, variation. … … so what did you faux-guilt-ridden diversity morons expect, kumbaya? … … keep bellowing about your uniqueness and demanding to be celebrated and separated for it and the team, country, and culture crash apart. words matter and actions speak louder than words.
Last year I was looking up synonyms for “diversity” and the first one that popped up on the Merriam-Webster site was “anti-community.” It has since been removed.
I spent twenty years in the USAF, and over the years, diversity has made the minorities branch off into their own groups. Each month is a celebration of some diversity, such as “African-American Month,” Asian-Pacific Islander Month,” etc. Gone are the days of “ONE Team, ONE Mission.” Now, it’s every group for itself…and hopefully the actual mission may get accomplished.
The diversity trap can certainly harm the very minorities it proposes to help. As a Jew, I am saddened by the calls for Jews to “support diversity” by dating and marrying non-Jews. We are disappearing as a people because of this practice. Diversity will eventually consist of nothing more than comparing your distant ancestors. The diversity mocement’s true goal is to eliminate the diversity they trumpet.
Wodiej, you need to read your Bible once in a while to get God’s opinion and stop promoting your own as God’s….Here is what God has to say about homosexuals and the Kingdom of God:
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.” — 1Cor 6:9-11 —
This desperate quest for diversity has led to the creation of an academic system completely devoid of diversity, if diversity of ideas is what is meant. Unfortunately, it never is [at least I’ve never encountered one in all the articles I’ve read]. It uniformly means affirmative action for a diversity of skin color, which gets us nothing but, well, diversity of skin color.
The suppression of ideas other than the approved ones in academia is a tacit claim that knowledge in the social studies is complete, that there is nothing more to be learned beside the current liberal one. So why do we need those professors? Just assign a book to be read by the students.
Professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas School of Law has provided an insightful comment on why speech codes are necessary on the modern campus: “As it would be self-defeating to permit open discussions of racial preference, ‘hate-speech’ codes will have to be adopted, ‘political correctness’ enforced, and ‘sensitivity training’ programs instituted.”
And from Professor Thomas Sowell – “I have never known a word to become absolute dogma, without a speck of evidence, the way ‘diversity’ has.”
“Destroying society?” My goodness, that is precisely their goal. That is the only rational explaination for what they do:economically, socially, and spiritually–and including the emasculation of our military, and the “accidental” support of America’s announced enemies throughout the middle east and Africa.
Perhaps we forgot the socialist default mode of taking over an nation? First, stir the pot, cause conflict and revolution, swoop in and glue the pieces into a Godless socialist utopia(till the next revolution) In short, speak only of wanting good while doing evil!
We have seen the left over decades, deliberately divide and set Americans into hostile opposing groups, prepping the stage by tearing down the institutions and values that held it together, including family, God and His churches (from an ordained mission of individual salvation to one of collectivist social justice), education, and responsibility.
“And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:4,8)
abortion, same-sex-marriage, forced contraception, sterilization, government control of healthcare leading to denial of care to the elderly and those with mental disorders. As unpopular as it may sound the original goal of pushing women into the workforce. Was a way to separate women from childbearing and raising a family. Remember the constant refrain from old feminist is that women are not to be treated as just baby factories.When you lump all of the liberal/progressive priorities together all you see is empty futures or death.
Who’s message is the one of love and Life and who is the one who brings death and hopelessness.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/01/chicago_npr_station_issues_bizarre_plea_go_make_babies_today_comments.html#disqus_thread#ixzz2JXqL4SqA
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook