Diversity and Conformity

As discussed in my previous articles, the claim that all cultures are inherently equal, the attack on rational values, and the raising of the group above the individual underlies the call for “diversity”.

But what is the goal of the diversity advocates? The alleged goal of “diversity” is to eliminate a policy of “exclusion.” “Racial diversity” for example demands eliminating “exclusion” of minorities in employment (among other scenarios). If that were the multiculturalist’s actual goal they would be advocates of merit as the determining criteria used by employers, and not race.

But this is not what they advocate – “diversity” demands that race (or gender, or religion, or sexual orientation) be the determining factor over merit. They demand quotas for “minorities” and disregard the fact that those hired may not be sufficiently qualified. The result is that what is being diversified is hiring by ability with hiring by non-ability. Values are being diversified with non-values. “Diversity” goals taking precedence over merit means that businesses should hire and promote people for what they lack, for a non-value. This policy can only negate and destroy genuine values.

In seeking to eliminate exclusion, the diversity advocates actual goal is conformity: conformity by individuals to unchosen values, to values chosen by the group as determined by the group leaders. They seek to eliminate values that conflict with theirs and force all individuals to abide by the same set of values.

The Ashby High Rise, here in Houston, is one example. The property owners wanted to build a multi-use high rise, but nearby home owners and the city sought to stop this diverse use of property—it was “incompatible” with nearby land uses.

Other examples are the anti-smoking ordinance and the landscaping ordinance. The anti-smoking ordinance forces all restaurants to conform to specific values in regard to smoking. There is no diversity on that issue—i.e., restaurants that allow smoking and those that don’t. The landscaping ordinance dictates what types of trees and shrubs may be legally planted, thereby forcing property owners to conform to the city’s view on what landscaping is appropriate. Recall that Houston’s vision statement begins with “Houston offers opportunity for all and celebrates its diversity of people, economy, culture, and places . . . .” It appears the “opportunity” mentioned excludes individuals that go against the group and choose their own values. So much for the diversity advocates claim that they are fighting exclusion.

This attack on values is unprecedented in our culture. The claim by the Liberals that “affirmative action” would enable the disadvantaged minority to eventually acquire the same values of the majority has given way to a fundamental attack on values as such. Instead of raising the “disadvantaged”, affirmative action has given way to “multiculturalism” and “diversity,” which attacks all values and wants to reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator.

Comments are closed.