Politically, it has become a favorite term of the PC
crowd, as in “through diversity, there is strength”.
Is that so? The
honest answer is “it depends”.
In a standard dictionary sense, diversity equates to
differences, as in the American population is composed of people who are
different from others.
Obviously, unless a characteristic trait is universal (e.g.,
all humans need to breathe), diversity abounds.
Some types of diversity are plainly fine but unimportant,
as in preferences for food, clothing and hairstyles, for instance. But others can be controversial – racial
diversity in groups used to be – and still is in some quarters.
But promoting differences is not always a good thing. Diversity is often considered desirable to
promote societal inclusiveness. But it can
conflict with other social concerns considered desirable such as highest levels
of competence possible. Think, as an
example of potential problems with affirmative action in hiring the most
qualified fire fighters. Depending on
the quality of those hired and their performance, obtaining diversity along
lines of sex and or race might not be an unmitigated good. Certainly when seeking members of the fire
department, one is seeking uniformity of (high) quality, not diversity of
competence.
Thus, from a common sense perspective, diversity is not
necessarily a strength.
Consider America’s motto (which appears on our
coins): E pluribis unum. It’s a
Latin phrase which means: Out of many,
one.
What does this mean in the context of our nation?
Certainly, it can be interpreted to stand for the fact
that the United States of America became one nation when, in 1776, the thirteen
colonies banded together. It can also be
viewed as a testament to the joining of people of various heritage and
backgrounds into a common enterprise dedicated to individual freedom and
respect for the God-given rights of others.
The diversity celebrated was that of origin and locale, not of values
held. Again, that only makes sense. How can a people be said to join in a common
objective if there are significant differences as to what the goals are? Diversity, on such fundamental questions
leads, not to strength, but to national suicide.
In the present day, the Left uses the term “diversity” as
shorthand for “multi-culturalism”. And
what does this mean?
It can mean, simply, that different habits, languages and
customs of people from different lands are worthy of respect and tolerance, if
not acceptance. But it can also mean
that people with views and objectives at
odds with the American creed of liberty and mutual respect should also be
welcome.
And that’s a big problem.
Americans have a right to insist that our nation’s inhabitants adhere to
our values – not antagonistic beliefs prevalent in other lands.
