In Re: "Diversity"

We thought the (morbidly obese) ghost of Gene Nichol and his libelous resignation email were buried. As the DOG Street Journal (am I paying WAY too much attention to these guys? Slow [WM] news summer...) continues to teach us, neither is at rest. In their latest "Tribe Vibe," the scions at DSJ turned their attention to "diversity" [note: "Diversity" is set in quotes since I refer not to real diversity of thought, outlook, and values, but to "diversity" of skin color, sex, or choice of sex partner]. Rather than repeat and critique the author point by point, I will attempt to present a centre-right view on the failures of "diversity" engineering, and a sketch of a collegiate society with actual diversity.
"Diversity" engineering's logical conclusion was displayed for all at the University of Delaware last fall. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Academia (FIRE) exposed a residence life orientation program that condemned all whites as racist (ignoring THE MERE POSSIBILITY of other races being racist), berated heterosexuals, and interrogated freshmen concerning their personal habits. When "diversity" must be achieved at the expense of free thought, what has society gained? A tapestry of totalitarians instead of an all-Aryan staffel? The author of the DSJ piece notes, "People seem so often to painstakingly edit their thoughts to produce overly P.C. responses, leaving only wisps of speakers’ true intentions and eliminating any actual frankness from the discourse," citing Nichol's Parting Libel as proof. Why might this be so? Is it not because those with dissenting views (on anything) sit among a 70 percent plurality (referring to Hopkins' election number)? Seventy percent is a greater percentage of support than Slobodan Milosevic, Robert Mugabe, and Franjo Tudjman claimed in their rigged elections. We're not quite at Saddam numbers yet, but who honestly believes that when "diversity" means nothing more than a rainbow of people saying the same thing, the silent pressure to conform renders thought police unnecessary?
"But wait!" says the liberal sycophant. "We hosted the anti-diversity speaker last year-we had dialogue and we [left-liberals] won." That wasn't dialogue either. That was an attempt by a (singular) (woefully misguided) conservative to commit ideological "shock-and-awe," and the plan failed. Instead of shocking the liberals into abandoning their long-held position, the tactic emboldened those who believe that conservatives are evil racists bent on a Restoration of Bull Connor and Orval Falbus (both Democrat governors of Southern states in the '60s). Bringing a Bosnian Serb (to those who know the Balkans, "Bosnian Serb" and "nationalist" are a redundancy when used in that order) to discuss race relations is like bringing the High Inquisitor of Spain (from 1500) to discuss interrogation techniques. This is not how to have a productive conversation.
But is it productive to have the Junior Senator from Illinois' (/Second Coming of Christ's/Twelfth
Imam's/Bodhisatva's/etc) version of the "national conversation on race" at our College? No, but that is what we now have. And I daresay even the DSJ author knows in his gut that that "conversation" isn't right somehow. This would explain his regret of "overly P.C. responses." What exactly that phrase means to him, I do not know. As for what it means to me, that is clear. It means not criticizing certain persons for their CONDUCT because of the fear of being called a racist/xenophobe/misogynist/fascist. It means that if you're not a "victim group," shut the fuck up and let us (diversity educators) do the talking. It means that you best parrot the party line lest you face the "bias response team." If you think that this is fearmongering, I would suggest you Google "University of Delaware residence life controversy" (third link is from FIRE) and "Dartmouth Professor Sues Students" to illustrate two examples of what can happen if free expression is not protected and peer pressure is used to compel obedience.
So where ought we go? How do we achieve diversity rather than "diversity?" We must protect the freedom of expression for all first. If officialdom can compel obedience to a party line, they do not need the seventy willing percent to enforce compliance (although they help). Second, each must be diplomatic in respect to alternative views. This doesn't mean that you accept or agree with the view-it means that no epithets ("hyper-conservative," perhaps, Mr. Nelson? Or maybe "hysterical xenophobe," FH?) are tossed and the matter can be put behind friends when the time comes (its hard, but it does happen-I speak from experience).
But what of interracial relations in this calm and civilized new world? We will learn them in the best of bad ways, by fucking up and learning from it. But the fuckups will be free to be corrected against any individual, not only "whites" [sidebar: "White," "Black," "Asian-Pacific Islander," etc. are absolutely arbitrary demarcations of difference. In early (pre 1900) US history, it used to be that one was classified by his nation of ancestry: Anglo, Irish, German, Italian, etc. Then Jim Crow-era "colored" and "white" replaced those, and the current racial system replaced that in the 1960s. One hopes one day "race" will go the way of slavery, with the recognition that although we have heritage (ALL OF US, not just some races/cultural groups) we are all firstly, secondly, and thirdly, Americans. end sidebar]. We will live together and get along, as most hoped that we would long ago, since no "race" owes "debt" to another and each individual must carry his weight. The free market ought to force this (if it were permitted) by bringing "the races" together in common cause, in which open racism would cause certain failure. In this regard, I would argue that I have learned more about getting along with people of different races from working in fast food than from the Office of Multicultural Affairs. If only that sort of experience were allowed. Let me now celebrate finishing this long post with a cup of tea (an Asian cultivation blended by Britons) while listening to rock and roll (derived from an African musical tradition through jazz by Americans and Britons) while reading the world news (from everywhere). You dont think that free trade will help any, no?

After the Brandy

http://dogstreetjournal.com/story/4165

Dear me. It's hard to find exactly where to start with this article. The DSJ (who reads that? just curious...) have been running a series of (truly asinine) "Tribe Vibe" pieces for consumption by freshmen. So, after talking about such harmless things as the (grossly overstated) academic mentality of WM students and a-capella groups, the sages at the DSJ decided, "Hey! You know what would be a great idea? Talk about religion!" The writer (predictably) concentrated on the "diversity" of religious expression and how much WM needs a "dialogue" on religious affairs. She, in so doing, says the following:

• Nichol tried to talk about religion, and the conversation exploded in our faces.

• Now, the few who still care are left speculating about the long-term impact of the Wren cross issue, be it actually religious or merely political.

Oh my. Gene Nichol and the Wren Cross, diluted for the unwashed newcomers. And placed in a discussion about campus religious expression to boot! But let us examine the central claim, which is (loosely) that Nichol sought "dialogue" about the place of religion at WM. The fact that the central piece of evidence is the Committee on Religion in a Public University (hereforward CRPU) suggests that this is misleading if not false. Nichol arbitrarily decided to remove the cross. The consummate Democrat used the undemocratic power of fiat rule to assert his own view of the Establishment Clause on an all-too-willing campus populace. Had he convened CRPU beforehand, he would have come across much more favorably to those who disagreed with the decision. The result might have been tolerable to most (including the alumni who bankroll many major capital expenditures) without cutting the wounds the initial removal opened. If anything, Nichol taught us how NOT to talk about religion. He taught us NOT to act hastily without considering alternative views and attempting to reach a livable solution.

But instead of concerning herself solely with honoring the man of one mind and enumerating the various religious communities in the Williamsburg area, the author has chosen to lecture the "us" (i.e. not her) on the need for "dialogue" as if it will "bring us together." Religion is a touchy subject, like politics. There is a reason the proverb my mother taught me long ago was phrased "don't talk about politics OR RELIGION until after the brandy" (the implication being that the next morning no one would remember the hurt feelings of the night before). It isn't that Hindus, Muslims, Protestants, Catholics, and Jews cannot be friends. It isn't that each cannot practice his own faith with his fellow believers (he should). What is is that any matter of religion will arouse passions, and any addressing of religious matters or policy must be undertaken with THE GREATEST POSSIBLE DELICACY. It is NOT true, as the DSJ author posits, that "If anyone in the world should be able to discuss religion, it should be us." We are college students. We don't know everything. We sure as hell don't know how to deal with different religious groups in a way that does not seem to favor one or another (such an arrangement is probably nonexistent). Silent aggreements of tuus cuique (to each his own) are certainly better than a forced "dialogue" that would likely consist of the same banal ecumenism that has afflicted the Roman Church since Vatican II, with "diversity seminars" and ecumenical celebrations at the major festivals (Eid, Easter, Passover, and the like). Does this really "Bridge the Gap Between Us"? No. What the community must do, if it must do anything, is commit itself to Free Expression of faith (or lack thereof), each according to the dictates of his own conscience. I think we do that pretty well already. So let's save the "dialogue" for Last Call.