D.E.I. is D.E.A.D.

A poisonous philosophy dissipates

Many topics we debate in a modern sociopolitical discourse are complicated and nuanced. Sweeping generalities are used routinely by all sides of the debate but fall woefully short of capturing the full breadth of an issue. Quite often Truth is entirely dependent upon subjective factors that can and do change in an instant.

DEI is NOT one of those topics.

“Diversity, Equity and Inclusion,” as it is euphemistically named, is a worldview that replaces the basic tenets of “good and evil” with “oppressed and oppressor.” And EVERYONE is either one or the other. It replaces colorblindness with racial obsession. Ideas with identity. Debate with demonization. Persuasion with shaming. The rule of law with mob rule.

In its most basic form, DEI links racism, race, and power into one entity. It sees this entity as omnipresent in all of western culture. It sees liberal democracies as forever stained with the original sin of slavery, and (therefore) in need of dismantling, not just repair. It views the very foundations of western thought like rationalism, constitutional law, and legal reasoning as evidence of racism. DEI thus became an academic's way of rationalizing and defending their OWN racism.

As Charles Cooke points out in National Review, “One can either have a legally color-blind society in which we are regarded as equal by the government, or one can have DEI, affirmative action, privilege hierarchies, and the rest. And, in America, it is the former course that is guaranteed.”

It is easy to see the appeal of a theory that touts “institutional” and “hidden” racism as the biggest contemporary issues. As overt racism became a thing of the past, DEI acolytes were left grasping for flimsy evidence. They achieved this either by expanding the definition of racism or by making outrageous statements to keep up their narrative of perpetual oppression.

The flurry of activity in Donald J. Trump’s first days of office included a spate of Executive Orders to weed out DEI at the federal level. To the President’s credit, the EOs do more than just say “DEI – Bad.” There is some specificity that attempts to strip even the residue of the ideology from all levels of the federal bureaucracy.

Specifically, it seeks to end the use of “dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences”; to “terminate all discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement actions, consent orders, and requirements”; and to “enforce our longstanding civil-rights laws.”

Yes, there will be DEI wonks that are re-assigned to benign-sounding titles, but DEI is now dead as a foundational threat. And good riddance.

But there is more good news. Trump’s executive order also tells public education systems and institutions of higher education that if they don’t comply with the Supreme Court’s anti-affirmative action ruling from 2023, their federal funding could be stripped.

Of course, it was the ivy-covered halls of academia was where DEI found its first and full flowering. Those working at colleges and universities instantly understood that DEI requirements included the adoption and promotion of a set of political and social views. They also corrected assumed that in order to advance in their careers, they must demonstrate fealty to these vague and ever-expanding demands and to those people who support them. Failing to comply, or even expressing doubt or concern, was risking one’s career.

Far too often we heard the standard vacuous polysyllabic pablum used by these “learned” people in explaining and promoting DEI. It was akin to a secret handshake that allowed DEI professionals to identify each another. It is an insular language that confirms someone’s membership in a fetid, racist club.

The "diversity statements" implemented at college departments were nothing more than a secular Profession of Faith. An Apostle's Creed for mendacious and mediocre grifters.

In the inevitable contest between the amorphous tenets of DEI and a university’s commitment to free and open exchange of ideas under the aegis of longstanding academic codes of conduct, DEI won by a wide margin for well over a generation.

Of course it was really nothing new. The DEI framework has been used for decades to prey upon collective white guilt. It utilized a tragic bait-and-switch. White Americans who care about equality and justice were dragooned into advancing an illiberal agenda. If they questioned any part of it, they were told to, “check their privilege.” This usually cowed them into immediate obsequiousness. Because they are legitimately concerned with equality, the LAST thing they would want to do is be seen as a dreaded “oppressor.” No good person wants to be seen as a racist and many were willing to go the extra mile to make sure no one could hang such a disparaging sobriquet on them.

A dear friend of mine was human resources director with a mid-sized company in the late eighties. Two African-Americans had filed a discrimination claim against the firm. To put it charitably, their case was very thin.

Two weeks after the suits were filed, my friend got a call from a regional representative from Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition. The caller assured my friend the suits would magically disappear if his company made a tax-free donation to the coalition. He did not. And both suits were laughed out of court.

But as colleges churned out DEI-tainted graduates, it’s filthy tenets began to seep into the world of private business. This may break the heart of the SJWs who worship at the DEI altar, but here is the ugly truth. Companies implemented DEI not to “heighten their collective consciousness.” Nor were they in place to educate or train the workforce. They were nothing more than a risk management tool to protect the company. When the inevitable lawsuit gets filed regardless of merits, the company could tell the jury about all the DEI steps it took. Paying “trainers” or “facilitators” was insurance against liability. That’s it.

Many employees saw right through it and all it produced was anger, resentment and drops in production and morale.

Well, now they don’t have to worry about that as much, thanks in part to this week’s executive orders. And this racist cottage industry is on the ropes.

• “DEI is multilevel marketing for angry little people with postgrad degrees.”
  ---Chuck Vipperman, 7-12-22

Of course the Government has little control over what private companies can do with regards to DEI…and I would have it no other way. But to the extent that they can discourage the practice, Trump is. His orders prohibit federal contractors from employing the poisonous tenets of DEI. If they do, fine…no more sweet Government contracts for you. That should end any debate.

The DEI Cult’s catechism is that treating people without regard to race, ethnicity, sex, or sexual orientation, is wrong. They demand the dismantling old “systems of oppression” in the name of “equity”—or, equal outcomes. If that means discriminating in favor of protected classes, and against others, so be it. It’s a poisonous philosophy that flies in the face of our western concepts of freedom. It simply cannot co-exist.

Trump cannot lay sole claim to the metaphorical scalp of DEI. If there is a single person who can, it is Christopher Rufo. The freelance writer noticed the post-Floyd tidal wave in the summer of 2020. A lot of previously-laughable social engineering theories were suddenly becoming not only mainstream, but rapidly adopted.

Rufo was very upfront about his methods. In short, he took a page of the playbook that liberals had perfected generations ago. He sought to own the definition of DEI, to freeze it, to isolate it, and to villainize it. Sound familiar? That means you are familiar with Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”

His original focus was on Critical Race Theory. That is a teaching pedagogy that incorporates the principles of DEI and transfers them into the classroom. Whereas DEI set guidelines for hiring and staffing, CRT did the same for teaching the nation’s children.

I have often wondered if there was no pandemic going on when George Floyd was killed, (Yes, he was killed. Don’t @ me) would concern over CRT ever have fully developed? It was remote learning that largely exposed it. Parents who were suddenly privy to more of their children’s schoolwork began noticing some very unsavory things being taught and discussed. This gave rise to a wave of concerned parents who went to their School Boards to demand answers. Suddenly, meetings attended only by a few staffers became full-scale battle royales with screaming, police arrests and more.

Rufo took notice of this and came to the same conclusion I did. CRT was bad. CRT was wrong. CRT could not continue. The battle naturally led him higher up the food chain to turn his sights on CRT’s mother---DEI.

It was bad enough for mid-level managers to have to endure meetings and training sessions where they were told to “diminish their whiteness.” It was another thing when similar slop was visited upon our children. Predictably, an Army of Mother (and Father) Bears formed and took on his philosophy head-on. Rufo gave the movement a good guide and moral clarity. He helped immensely.

In the intervening months we have seen all but the most liberal school districts jettison this philosophical poison. It even led, in my opinion, to the election of previously-unknown Glenn Youngkin as Governor of my home state of Virginia. Evidently Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffe’s assertion that, “parents shouldn’t be telling schools what to teach,” was unpopular when the schools were choosing to teach envy and perpetual victimhood, masked as virtue.

Simply put, DEI is incompatible with our foundational principles of individualism, limited government, and liberal democracy. It creates indoctrinated adherents who can’t think --- only emote.

“Failure is never final,” the old saying goes. Well, neither is victory. It is clear that DEI’s threat as a baseline national social policy no longer exists. But so long as there are people and ideas who will benefit from being judged on immutable characteristics as opposed to merit, then there will always be efforts to utilize this poisonous philosophy.

So let’s be vigilant. But let’s also not forget to give ourselves a well-deserved pat on the back and to pour out a 40. This dragon has been slain.