Diversity and the Attack on Values

The definition of cultural diversity cited in my article on Diversity and Multiculturalism stated that one of the characteristics is “. . . treating impartially and fairly each ethnic group without promoting the particular beliefs and values of any group”.

Every culture is different but none is superior according to the “diversity” advocates. This means that the values embraced by each culture are equally valid. Claiming that all values are equal reduces to equating values with non-values. This is an attack not just on evaluating some cultures as better than others, but an attack on values as such. So they extend their attack to not just evaluating cultures, but evaluating people, personal choices, ability, and nearly everything else. The diversity advocates demand for “treating people equally” does not mean evaluating each individual by a rational standard – it means blind acceptance of differences without evaluation.

But to value is to evaluate some thing or idea as better than others, to identify something as good, as life promoting, i.e. as essential for life. The diversity advocates ignore this tie between values and life itself, and seek to eliminate evaluation as such, regardless of the criteria used for evaluation. They will not acknowledge that one method of doing something may be better than another method, because it may “disenfranchise” or “marginalize” some minority. Evaluation is “oppression”, “tyranny” and “discrimination” in the eyes of the diversity advocates.

Seeking to eliminate any disagreement over values inevitably leads to advocating government coercion by the diversity advocates. HERO serves as an example here. The advocates of HERO sought to force individuals to regard certain values as valid, regardless of their own personal beliefs. And after HERO was voted down, one article on the web titled “Houston should be ashamed” claimed that “Houston chose bigotry over equality”.

Note also that the diversity advocates attacks are always one sided. Their attacks are limited to objective, rational values. Here in Houston, for example, they don’t hesitate to attack the city for its general respect for property rights. They seek to prevent property owners from using their property as they choose, because individual choices might be considered discriminatory or harmful to some group. They seek to prevent individuals from pursuing their values, and instead force them to pursue the group’s values. But are there any such attacks by the diversity advocates against those that don’t respect property rights?

Comments are closed.