Oh no! The newspaper I trust most, after the Sonoran News, is the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). We never use either one in our outhouse, out of respect for their content. But the N.Y. Times is regularly used there. The WSJ is now on hold because it recently announced that it is going to reorganize so it can, “Increase the ‘diversity’ of its newsroom leadership.” I’m not sure what that portends, but whenever I hear the word “diversity” or “inequality” or “social justice” I know something very liberal, very phony, and very spooky is going to cost me more money and become a self-righteous slogan for Chuck Schumer.
The word “Diversity” has become the official liberal/progressive word for any program that organizes special groups into little ethnic protesters who consider themselves as “victims.” It now defines any lefty bunch that can be rounded up into a protest group seeking recognition of their cultures” while simultaneously rejecting America’s traditional “melting-pot” culture. They trade “melting-pot inclusiveness” for the warped theory that insists “diversity” is more important than America’s exceptionalism.
Today’s Diversity ideology has two major problems – what’s the criteria used to implement it? And the historical consequences that have created chaos where it has been adopted as “the” culture because it becomes intolerant of other cultures.
Maybe the best criteria for diversifying is to use the zoo method. Bring together all the species we need. Two giraffes, two zebras, two snakes, two donkeys, two skunks, etc, etc and lock each group in a cage so they won’t attack each other. But like a board of directors or any agency, the snakes will slither, the skunks will smell bad, the donkeys will be dumb and the whole organization will suffer from diversity.
Other criteria to achieve diversity could be by forming groups by “Country of Origin” or by ethnic, racial or sexual similarities so the diversity is distinct and exclusive of everyone not one of themselves. The real problem is that “diversity” programs tend to be progressive and ultimately escalate their own importance into a religion or god which requires mandatory obedience. “My way or the highway” is the rule for membership in the “Diversity” cage.
If you don’t agree with the diversity standard you will be treated like a conservative trying to speak at a typical University. You may be called one or all of the following, depending on the radical scale of the higher education institution: racist, Nazi, jerk, xenophobic, perverse, heterosexual, homophobic, gun-loving, misanthropic, cholesterolic, germaholic, drunkard, geek, union member, radical, atheistic, religious alt-right dirt-bag. If you don’t fit any of those categories, you can still join any “diverse” University group if you are a riot-loving socialist and own your own four letter profanity sign.
For a serious article on “Diversity” and the danger it ultimately creates, see Victor Davis Hanson, author, historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University email@example.com. His article is entitled, “Diversity: history’s pathway to chaos.” The opening observation, “Diversity has been the pitfall, not the strength of nations throughout history.” It is a convincing article on the historical advantages of unity, not diversity.
It’s too easy to be conned by the sanctimonious seductions of superficial sanctuaries labeled as “diversity.” Before aligning with some way to be diverse, check out the melting-pot of an Exceptional America that still extends a welcoming hand and a warm heart for people seriously searching for individual freedom.