Diversity is Uniformity

"Diversity Workshops" are the current preferred indoctrination tool for modifying speech and behavior. Even though you may have heard of them, you may not know how widespread they are. Without fanfare, and with an assist from academia and the mainstream media, they have permeated our society, large cities as well as small towns. These workshops are conducted in grade schools, including pre-K, high schools, junior colleges, and universities as well as public organizations and private companies. Government funds, private grants and payments from user organizations fund the workshops. Attendance is mandatory and failure to attend results in disciplinary action.

If you haven’t been subjected to one of these "tolerance expanding opportunities," I will take you on a brief tour of one – actually a composite of a couple of such workshops. The workshop is entitled: "Making a Difference by Valuing Diversity." Because some of what you will read may sound improbable, I normally would assure you that I am not making it up. But I realize that I don’t have to make a disclaimer, because, after decades of social engineering, although dumbfounded by it, you will realize it is true.

A diversity workshop, like other propaganda mechanisms, is propelled by language manipulation, i.e., semantics. A basic axiom of semantics states that if you change words, you can change behavior. Semantic mumbo jumbo, or "spin," has so infected politics that we no longer expect elected officials to use plain English. A tax may be called a User Fee or a Revenue Enhancement. Racial preferences are called Affirmative Action. And so on. But with diversity workshops, semantic sorcery has been elevated to an all-time high. Indeed, whoever created this workshop material has a well-thumbed Thesaurus.

To begin with, instructors are called "facilitators" and they have been trained to "build and sustain enthusiasm for the value of diversity" by creating an "interactive framework for the mentor-mentee relationship." Facilitators have been instructed how to deal with "resistant participants" – a participant who may resist or question what is being facilitated. Participants soon learn that, in a diversity workshop, diversity of opinion is not tolerated. Everyone must leave the workshop sanctified with identical sanitized opinions. In other words, the ultimate goal of diversity is uniformity.

Two females, one white and one black, conducted the workshop. These two stern facilitators didn’t waste time with greetings and pleasantries. They moved right into the workshop proper. One facilitator presented the material. The other strolled slowly through the room; scrutinizing participants and making notes in a notebook, apparently recording reactions.

To kick off the session, another semantic device was applied – referring to an opinion as though it were a fact. Phrases such as; "As we know," "It is now recognized" and "There is general agreement" are commonly employed. The facilitator explained that diversity workshops are essential in order to correct the discriminatory practices of "white males" – "The Dominant Culture" – who for years "set the standard" for our society. In doing so, these Anglo males structured a patriarchal society that excluded participation by women, non-white males, and other ethnic groups. Gays and lesbians were also held back by white males. At this point, the facilitator altered the pejorative term "white males" to "straight white males."

After the facilitator finished gelding straight white males, she moved into a discussion of sexual orientation. She made it clear that straight white males discriminate against other groups but gay white males do not. Next she described the "typical" white male who has negative attitudes toward gay men. He is usually older, less well educated, and normally from the South or Midwest where homophobic and sexist attitudes are the norm. He is more likely to attend religious services, endorse orthodox religious beliefs and be supportive of traditional gender roles. While the facilitator acknowledged that dissuading this group from its "biases" and provincial beliefs would be difficult, she noted that successful government oversight of hiring practices has drastically reduced their presence in organizations.

One salient point that was repeated again and again was that there is no longer a majority in America. Furthermore, minorities do not exist anymore. These terms are obsolete. Today we do not have a "melting pot" society but rather a "salad bowl" society – she preferred to call it a "delicious stew" – a collection of coequal groups without a majority or minority. Attendees must comprehend and accept this fundamental change in the new American society. Once understood, they must alter their perspective so that schools and workplaces can "accelerate acceptance of diversity’s value within every group and at every level."

As the workshop proceeded, its content appeared to be more influenced by Feminism. According to the facilitator, women have suffered most from the callousness of males and gender inequality received an extended analysis. The facilitator objected to terms that qualify the sexes such as "female doctor" or "male nurse." She explained that unequal treatment of girls begins in grade school and continues throughout high school and into college years. Some educators in Beaufort apparently share this concern. As a result some schools designate certain days when boys must come to school dressed like girls and girls dressed like boys. This is a sociological attempt to help the sexes "empathize" with each other and to enable boys to understand the unique problems girls face.

One of the more shocking aspects of the workshop was an attack on the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The facilitator asked those who believed this biblical precept to raise their hands; an overwhelming majority did so. Shaking her head, the facilitator lashed out at the Golden Rule and dismissed it as outdated and no longer relevant to our contemporary society. Attendees were given verbal and written instructions to abandon the Golden Rule in favor of the "Platinum Rule": "Treat people how they want to be treated." This directive not only offended religious sensibilities but many felt it was contrary to common sense. One woman brought up the example of an employee, who goofs off, makes excessive mistakes and causes conflicts with co-workers. This person might wish to be treated as a conscientious employee but that is not the case. The facilitator knew how to deal with this resistant participant.

She explained that people from diverse groups cannot always be judged by the dictates of "the dominant culture" – one that was constructed to accommodate straight white males and represents a patriarchal and defunct past. Also, the problems enumerated by the participant might be "perception" related and based on a stereotyped view of the faulty worker’s cultural group. She informed the resistant participant that: "Prejudice is a self-fulfilling prophecy." But another attendee pursued the question: What about an employee who is always late? To which the facilitator gave this Clintonesque response: "It depends on what your definition of ‘late’ is." She then admonished the participant for viewing differences as weaknesses.

To demonstrate why prejudice is so pervasive in America, the facilitator used the "iceberg analogy." Seven-tenths of an iceberg is hidden and we can only see the small part that rises above the surface of the ocean. Likewise, in our interactions with others, especially other cultural groups, we are only aware of a small part of the total person. So, because of the biases acquired from the dominant culture, we prejudge those that are different from us. But valuing diversity requires that we must move beyond our biases and respect differences.

Attendees were instructed to stop regarding certain modes of dress or grooming as more "professional" than others. Clothing, body adornments, and grooming may vary widely from one cultural group to another and it is wrong to insist on one form only. This does not value diversity. Instead, it is yet another outdated concept left over from the reign of conservative white Anglo males. Idiomatic speech and work habits as well as concepts of time may be culturally influenced thereby resulting in differing approaches to accomplishing tasks. Participants were encouraged to avoid making distinctions regarding work styles or insisting on a standard of performance and instead accept the relativism inherent among diverse groups.

Because of the biases we have learned from the former dominant culture, we feel uncomfortable around people who are different and judge them with stereotyped opinions, screening out any evidence that contradicts our prejudice. Ingrained biases cause us to engage in "collusion." Collusion is a form of "social crime" defined as "cooperation with others, knowingly or not, to reinforce stereotypical attitudes, prevailing behaviors, and norms using silence, denial, or active participation." Jokes are one of the most virulent forms of collusion; someone or some group is always the butt of the joke. Derogatory terminology is a form of collusion: terms such as "Indians" instead of Native Americans, "Blacks" instead of African-Americans and "handicapped" instead of functionally impaired. Unequal references such as "men and ladies" are also insensitive.

Silence can be a form of collusion; one that especially annoys the facilitator. For example, if you are standing in line in the cafeteria or waiting for an elevator, your silence could be injurious to a member of another cultural group standing near you. It might give the appearance that you do not wish to converse with them as an equal. Also, body language, such as not making eye contact, folding your arms across your chest, and dismissive facial expressions can be hurtful to members of other groups. The facilitator made it clear that collusion is always wrong whether intentional or unintentional.

Attendees were informed that the organization will conduct frequent "cultural audits and climate assessments" to determine new workplace rules. Standards of speech and conduct will be posted and failure to comply could result in severe disciplinary measures and possibly termination. Included in the posted rules will be a requirement that employees report other workers whom they have observed engaging in collusion – telling jokes that might demean other groups, using disparaging terminology, engaging in inappropriate silences or displaying unsuitable body language. These offenders must be reported and disciplined on a timely basis to accelerate the implementation of diversity.

At the close of the workshop, each participant was required to complete a "Valuing Diversity Action Plan" in which they committed to personal diversity goals. Some of the categories listed on the "Plan" were – My most important diversity goal, which I commit to working toward, is: – Benefits I will gain from valuing diversity: – Perceptions about people who are different from me that I will work to change: – Ways I will contribute to creating an environment that values diversity. The facilitators made copies of each attendee’s "Action Plan" so that their goals could be reviewed in twelve months to determine what each had accomplished.

The problems enumerated by the facilitators indicate that "valuing diversity" is not going to be easy. Even Sesame Street might not pass muster with these Orwellian martinets. But they were adamant that organizations must "implement and manage diversity" and "sustain a commitment to change." Human resources departments may not be adequately staffed to administer these new restrictions on speech and behavior so companies may need to create an Office of Equity & Diversity as some colleges have already done.

A common reaction to the diversity workshop went something like this: I was forced to attend and because I don’t want to be disciplined by management, I’ll just "grin and bear it." Most white males left the room scowling. Many females were also irritated. Typically they complained: My husband/boyfriend is a straight white male and I resent the blanket indictment made against that group! The disparagement of the Golden Rule as well as other explicit and implicit criticisms of religious beliefs also offended many attendees. A few disgruntled participants claimed that they would refuse to attend future diversity workshops regardless of the consequences

Today, all organizations of any size consist of males and females, members of various racial and ethnic groups, persons with different sexual orientations and handicapped persons. Members of all these groups can be found in all levels of management. Like most human beings, they work together and interact without conflicts the majority of the time. Are our organizations perfect? No. Or, if I may paraphrase the facilitator: It depends on what the definition of "perfect" is. And therein lies the problem. Who will decide when "perfection" has been achieved?

I maintain that these Diversity Bolsheviks are "Frustrated and distraught idealists." This is the term used by one scientist to describe individuals who want to make the world perfect – perfect according to their definition. Psychologists classify Workaholic as a behavior disorder – symptoms being a high need to control, inflexibility and perfectionism. But don’t these symptoms apply to these fascistic idealists? How is it that they have escaped the attention of mental professionals?

But valuing diversity requires that we must move beyond our biases and respect differences.

"Valuing diversity" of course, accomplishes just the opposite. This is best borne out by viewing how minority studies are handles on college campuses.

Feminist this and that and "Black Studies" this & that & "Latino this & that" shoes that these folks still love to label all feminists as monolithic; all blacks as monolithic; all hispanics as monolithic. They love to stereotype these groups and then to absolutize these stereotypes by imbedding these principles into courses.

"Diversity" as taught on these campuses is also chopped up into various pie pieces: feminist pie piece, gay pie piece, Latino pie piece, black pie piece, etc. all arranged according to "divide lines"--emphasizing what makes them different. And here is where "diversity" comes through according to its original Latin meaning: "apartness"...it drives people apart (opposite of the original meaning of "university"--within multiple disciplines is one basic worldview--the Bible.

The Ivy League schools were founded upon Scriptural principles.

So, now you cannot even choose to whom you wish to associate. You can't have a moment of quiet reflection to yourself. You can't even have a bad day and not want to speak to anyone.

If some people are that sensitive, why don't they just end EVERYONE's misery and kill themselves. It would open up some jobs for people who don't have to have their hands held throughout their entire lives.

Attendees were given verbal and written instructions to abandon the Golden Rule in favor of the "Platinum Rule": "Treat people how they want to be treated." This directive not only offended religious sensibilities but many felt it was contrary to common sense.

This violates common sense in more ways than one. This assumes that co-workers always know how a co-worker wants to be treated. In other words, it assumes mind-reading.

And, of course, if your "diversity" objective is One Mind, then everybody should be thinking on exactly the same uniform wavelength.

We don't even know which employee is gay, leaving the question of respecting gay employees as a separate one.

If a gay employee wants to be respected, then he or she better realize character counts. As Josh McDowell said, all sexual relationships involve character since it involves intimacy and communication between two people. Therefore when someone jettisons character due to their sexual choices, don't expect others to have their morals changed with abra cadabra training sessions. This is like demanding folks during the height of the Clinton scandal to "respect" him. The office/position can be respected; the person? No way!

You are much too kind. These people are compulsion driven neurotics, not idealists. What they cannot stand, is the fact that people really are different. In the name of "diversity" they want to force everyone to imagine that human differences are all environmental, and may be swept away by collective action. Both Communism and National Socialism reflected other aspects of this same malady. (The Communists and Nazis, of course, had a little more direct way to eliminate people whom they deemed resistant to their idealism, but the principle is basically the same. They also used the same type of brainwashing techniques the American Left uses, in situations such as you describe. The Communists and Nazis also had the same lack of respect for parental guidance, as do these people.)

This sort of thing has been going on, in one form or another for two generations, and has created an intellectually absurd climate, which actually works to the distinct disadvantage of virtually every group in America. (See Life & Politics In A Pavlovian Kennel.)

No these people are not idealists. They are very messed up individuals, whom we have allowed to poison our perception of reality.

William Flax

Many years ago (late 70s) I was a freshly minted supervisor working for a multibillion dollar computer manufacture (since gone extinct). I went to many variants of these sessions. One that sticks in my mind was a one day program on how to interview minorities without being offensive or (most important) getting sued. A point that kept getting repeated over and over was how blacks usually have more garnishments than whites and we should be sensitive to that. I was thinking "lots of rings and beads" and the like only to find out later in the day that they were talking about garnishing of their wages.

However, at about the same time a Hispanic coworker of mine interviewed for a position with a very successful (still so) audio company. At the end of the interview the HR guy actually said "Well, for a Hispanic you're pretty sharp." He walked out at that point.

The company I currently work for is just interested in having good workers. Every year or two a short email goes out reminding everyone of the sexual harrassment policy and that's it.

Any company that seriously takes up these initiatives are heading for Chapter 11. Here's why.

Employee #1 is a serious, well trained, productive, intelligent worker. They're white, anglo-Christian (goes to church every sunday, lives a moral life, admires successful people and has strong Protestant work ethic) and just want to get things done. They get to work, do their job, and want to get a paycheque at the end of the week. They dress professionally, get to work on time or early, and would rather get their job done than stand around for half an hour listening to rants about how minority x - oh sorry - cassarole ingredient x [rolls eyes] is oppressed by him. In other words, they're a model employee.

Employee #2 is lazy and sloppy. When they finally do get to work, they do things over time and over budget. They're immoral and would rather sleep around than go to church. Why, if they were part of the "dominant culture" they would have never been hired.

Lets look at some situations:

Employee #1 only got to work 5 minutes early today instead of 20 minutes early. They came to work in a new, black suit, they're shoes are polished, their white shirt is clean and ironed, and they're wearing a conservative - say blue - tie.

Employee #2 got to work an hour late with some kakamaime excuse about traffic. Their hair is knotty and probably hasn't been washed, their shirt is crumpled, they're wearing a lot of beads and the like, and their shoes aren't polished.

Employee #1 gets reprimanded for upholding the dominant culture, employee #2 gets praise in the name of "tollerance" and "cultural diversity".

Employee #1 has a report he needs to get over to the folks in marketing. They walk straight there and back, getting back to work as fast as possible. No time to talk to anyone along the way - black, white, male, female, straight, gay, whatever; there's work to do.

Employee #2 takes a big detour via the coffee machine, and stops to talk to every minority along the way. What should be a 5 minute walk takes them nearly an hour - over 50 minutes of productive time wasted.

Employee #1 gets reprimanded for being productive, and doubly reprimanded for giving minorities the silent treatment. Employee #2's blatant time wasting is "promoting tollerance". They get praised.

Employee #1 is courteous, modest, and polite to all people. They get good deals with suppliers, they do the work on time and on budget, they're a good salesman (whoops, there I go again... "salesperson"). They're a very productive employee.

Employee #2 is inept and incompetant. They lose and annoy customers, and get ripped off by suppliers. They are rude and arrogent to everyone except for other minorities, who they treat like they "want to be treated". they goof off, and make stupid mistakes. Their projects go over time and over budget. But they're a minority.

You get the general impression of what these 2 make believe workers are like.

In a company that "embraces diversity", criticising employee #2 would be "intollerant". Employee #1 is a model employee, and worth a fortune to their company - there's no boss or owner in America who wouldn't want a guy like this working for them. And they need to be reprimanded for it.

Employee #2 would have a great record, employee #1's record would probably be filled with "serious violations". Employee #2 will be promoted to senior management while employee #1 languishes in drudge work. And when the company needs to let people go, employee #2 stays, employee #1 goes. And when it turns out how much employee #1 is worth to the company and that they need to hire people to take the position, they'd go with 2 employee #2's rather than 1 employee #1.

Now lets go down the track about - 10 years. The "intollerant" employee #1's have all been fired - they all now work for the competiton. Our politically correct company is filled with employee #2's from senior management on down. Yeah, they're losing fistfulls of money each month, but they're really diverse and tollerant now!

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.