Posted on 01/23/2020 12:54:58 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
It’s nearly impossible to have even a short conversation with a college administrator, politician, or chief executive without the words diversity and inclusion dropping from their lips.
Diversity and inclusion appear to be the end-all and be-all of their existence. So, I thought I’d begin this discussion by first looking up the definition of diversity.
Here’s my question to those who are wedded to diversity and inclusion: Are people better off the less they have in common with one another?
For example, women are less likely to be able to march 12.4 miles in five hours with an 83-pound assault load. They are also less likely to be able to crawl, sprint, negotiate obstacles, and move a wounded comrade weighing 165 pounds while carrying that load.
Would anyone argue that a military outfit would benefit from diversity by including soldiers who can and those who cannot march 12 miles in five hours while carrying an 83-pound load?
According to the Oxford Dictionary, diversity is “the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.”
The definition gratuitously adds, “equality and diversity should be supported for their own sake.”
The standard definition given for inclusion is involvement and empowerment where the inherent worth and dignity of all people are recognized.
You say, “Williams, the military is an exception!”
What about language?
The International Civil Aviation Organization has decreed that all air traffic controllers and flight crew members engaged in or in contact with international flights must be proficient in the English language as a general spoken medium.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailysignal.com ...
PING!
Diversity is NEVER the answer.
en·vy
/ˈenvē/
noun: envy; plural noun: envies
A feeling of discontented or resentful longing aroused by someone else's possessions, qualities, or luck.
Diversity is never the answer, it’s government mandated discrimination.
I once sat through a corporate meeting where the HR director droned in about this B.S. endlessly. When it came time for questions from the participants I asked a simple one: “About half our revenue comes from government contracts. Does our push for greater diversity mean we should be promoting people from cultures where bribery of public officials is legal and is considered a standard business practice?”
See my post 6.
“Diversity” is never the answer — it’s ultimately an indirect, involuntary sacrifice made by another.
Indiscriminate opportunity should be enough. Anything beyond is discriminate social engineering.
Regarding the involvement of extraordinary females in specialized male areas, the decision for acceptance should allow for the discrimination that preserves the integrity of the whole. These areas shouldn’t be forced to accept EFs.
I’ve had enough of Hollywood’s masculinisation of females. It’s absurd, tedious, and ultimately misogynistic. Let females be females. They already posses an abundance of capabilities and potential virtues no male could ever have.
>> Diversity is never the answer
Seriously, I did not see your post before mine....
Exactly. If it was the answer there would be “inclusion” in minority- only organizations
It’s certainly not the answer in education diversity instructors are amongst the worst it certainly isn’t the answer in professional schools Because the flunk out or drop out at much higher rate
It certainly isn’t the answer governmental bodies because they bring their racism and diversity BS along with them
It certainly isn’t the answer in business What are the Marcus exposes when were they just bounce from place to place
Diversity is the Peter principle at its worst. Inclusion and diversity and quotas will never work the market will flush them out
And you too... lol
See #10
“I’ve had enough of Hollywood’s masculinisation of females.”
I’ve thought the same, but when you see them trying to sell toy bows and arrows to little girls (a la “Hunger Games”) or “Star Wars” toys to them, you realize they are simply accepting that most of these females will probably never breed - so they treat them as smaller, weaker boys.
“It’s absurd, tedious, and ultimately misogynistic.”
Yet female actors make millions selling it, and some females must be buying it.
“Let females be females. They already posses an abundance of capabilities and potential virtues no male could ever have.”
Outside of bearing children, science can’t prove this at all; it is the type of phrase used to force corporate boards put token females on the payroll, nothing less. Much of the affirmative action push for women stems from the realization that whether they breed or not, they will be forced into the workplace - and the market has decided they offer nothing more than men, possibly less.
In my daily life, the only visible result of “diversity” has been several years of shorter workdays and less stress from work; I’ve been “working like a girl” for some time now - while my employer ensures no lawyers can target them for not paying females enough.
“Diversity is divisive and weakens every endeavor.”
It is a redistribution tax on any endeavor - and those who don’t pay will simply pay in court.
Where it is more important as to what you are than who you are. diversity kills
They eschew actual diversity - that of ideas - and go for faux, paint-brush “diversity”...where everyone still looks different but some differences in appearance mean oh-so-much more than others and thoughts are like a TV broadcast - all exactly the same from the same source and parroted on every TV...
“Diversity” and “inclusion” are frauds. Those college administrators have absolutely no interest in any “diversity” including conservatives and traditional Christians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.