The “valuing diversity” concept began at universities in the 1960s, while at the same time we were working towards desegregation nationwide. However, it exploded in the industrial world in the 1980s after Lewis Griggs, a speaker on the subject, coined the term. Corporations cynically saw robust diversity programs as a means to avoid discrimination lawsuits. There’s hardly an HR department in the country that doesn’t embrace the notion now – much to the detriment of our society. The concept has promoted conflict, not harmony.
The words themselves describe the problem. “Valuing diversity” means placing value on our differences, rather than our commonalities. When differences are afforded more social value than our commonalities, it becomes inevitable that people will cultivate those differences, and competition for societal recognition will ensue.
The intersectionality philosophy was an unavoidable outgrowth of the diversity movement. It is used to demand corrective actions for marginalization. Intersectionality subgroups must be given societal benefits to counteract their negative life experiences. There has become real-world value in being oppressed. We have created a social framework in which victimhood bestows significant status and is rewarded preferential treatment in admissions, hiring, disciplinary actions, and a myriad of other decisions. We have created a hierarchical ranking of differences and combinations of differences to establish a social pecking order.
We are now categorizing people according to ethnicity, race, financial standing, sexual orientation, gender, and an ever-growing list of oppression subcategories. But what is missing from that cataloging of human attributes? There is no valuation of a person’s character in the hierarchical ranking. Whether they work hard, care for their families, and contribute to their community is immaterial to the promoters of diversity and intersectionality.
It has unfortunately become standard practice in our human interactions to look at people through a Venn diagram lens to see how many victimhood intersections they have. We are told that their relative victimhood ranking alone should determine what benefits they must accrue. That’s not just my interpretation. That’s what Joe Biden said when he selected Kamala Harris and Ketanji Jackson Brown for high offices.
But, how does any of this cultivate values which are beneficial to society? Isn’t valuing one race over others the very definition of racism? How does valuing one gender over others defeat misogyny? Doesn’t valuing poverty over accomplishment discourage hard work?
The industry that promised integration has instead delivered separation. Our children are being taught that diversity and differences are good, while assimilation is bad.
Can we even discuss racial issues without using hyphenated citizenship anymore? Our citizenship must now include an ethnic qualifier to highlight our intersectionality membership. Our ethnic identity is becoming more important than being an American – because that is where society is placing value. As a result, we are self-separating. We are embracing apartheid in the name of “valuing diversity.”
“Valuing diversity” has failed to address our social issues because it is based on a flawed concept. It never had any chance of working. It created competition rather than acceptance.
Why did Elizabeth Warren claim to be a Native-American? Even if she believed it were true, why did she use it for anything other than small talk? She used the identifier for admissions and employment applications because the attribute had value in the society we have created. She used it to beat her competition.
It’s not merely an ethnicity issue either. Lia Thomas claimed to be a transgender female – putting him high in the intersectionality ranking of victimhood. He used his societal benefit to dominate in women’s sports – and share the women’s locker room. It didn’t matter that the women on his team didn’t want to share showers with a human with a penis. Being female had fewer intersectionality victimhood intersections than being “trans-female.” Lia won. His wishes were accommodated and his teammate’s were disregarded. His victimhood ranking gave him a competitive advantage over others.
“Valuing diversity” has created competition for social standing rather than cooperation for societal benefit. It has created conflict, not harmony.
Now we have come full circle and are re-segregating. We are celebrating separate graduation ceremonies, separate proms, separate classrooms, and separate meeting spaces. We are voluntarily moving back to a society that will look alarmingly like the 1950s when the transition is complete – the very type of society that men with small minds and evil hearts wanted all along. And we’re acting as if it is progress.
To perpetuate this conflict, we are destroying the minds of our children. Does teaching children that they are victims of society’s biases encourage them to excel? Aren’t we teaching them that their achievements are not dependent on their own efforts, but on the good will of others? Does telling them that they need government protection to succeed teach them that they are equal, or inferior? Does it leave them with a belief that hard work will be rewarded, or that hard work is for suckers?
We shouldn’t be surprised that after 40+ years of promoting this toxic philosophy we have more distrust, more violence, and an inability to even talk about the root causes of our problems.
Why are we still pursuing a failed concept? Because it has become big business. It is expected to grow to a $30 billion industry by 2033. In the time-honored liberal tradition: if something doesn’t work, spend more on it. As relations get worse, the diversity industry expects explosive growth. There’s big money in keeping us all at each other’s throats.
If we actually want more harmony in our society, we should be focusing on our commonalities, not our differences. How much more harmonious would America be if we focused on freedom, self-determination, healthy communities, and thriving families rather than differences in our gender, lifestyle choices, or ancestral background?
Let meritocracy defeat ignorance. No human is inherently inferior to another. It’s time we acted like we really believed that. Let everyone excel or fail based on their own initiative and decisions. If everyone is inherently equal, most will succeed – and they will defeat ignorance with their accomplishments.
I’ve been reading about the Tuskegee Airmen. They faced racism in the 1940s that would make today’s issues seem quaint. But they excelled at what they did – protecting bomber crews from enemy attack. They overcame racism one protected airman at a time. It’s hard to hate a man who risks his life to save yours. The bomber crews came to call them the “red tailed angels” – as in guardian angels.
We continue to hold Martin Luther King Jr. in high regard, but we rarely discuss the content of a person’s character anymore. Forty plus years of “valuing diversity” has not delivered acceptance and harmony, but only tension and distrust. Why did we let an assortment of self-proclaimed experts lead us down this path? Why are we still following them?
Author Bio: John Green is a political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He has written for American Thinker, and American Free News Network. He can be followed on Facebook or reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
Parler: https://parler.com/AFNNUSA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA