As you read through the varying definitions of diversity from major universities one thing is utterly striking: there is a fundamental assumption that diversity for its own sake is a societal good. Note for instance this language from the University of Oregon: “It is about understanding each other and moving beyond simple tolerance to embracing and celebrating the rich dimensions of diversity contained within each individual.” While the statement doesn’t say it directly, the implication is clear – each individual is the arbiter of his or her own moral universe. The University of Montana suggests “. . .learning is enhanced when topics are examined from diverse perspectives . . .” Part of the Kansas State credo requires an “[u]nderstanding that diversity includes not only ways of being but also ways of knowing.” Do homosexuals, or atheists, or Zoroastrians, or Chinese understand 1+1=2 differently from heterosexuals, Christians, other religions, or other races? If each individual is the arbiter of his or her own moral universe and each has his or her own perspective on what would otherwise be clear about propositional truth, upon what basis can one claim diversity should matter? Suppose it is my view that diversity is bad and that I don’t want to have my learning opportunities “enhanced” with “diverse perspectives?” Unfortunately, and ironically, diversity demands that the peculiar “dimensions of diversity contained [in me]” should neither be embraced nor celebrated.
Diversity, then, in spite of itself, becomes propositional truth among people who claim not to believe in propositional truth. For instance, Kansas State University proposes that “embracing diversity includes realizing that everyone is diminished if all are not represented.” Everyone is supposed to have a seat at the table. The problem is this means that people who do not think diversity is a moral value should then have a seat at the table. Suppose the non-diverse believer then persuades the diversity believers that non-diversity is acceptable? What then? Does the university then change its mind? Is non-diversity acceptable if everyone agrees that non-diversity is actually the preferable arrangement? Upon what basis would the university be able to argue otherwise? Particularly since learning about non-diversity has been enhanced with diverse perspectives and all have been “represented?” Diversity is a completely unworkable standard.
Of course, this will not happen. Why not? Because diversity is accepted as a propositional truth. One cannot, however, claim diversity is propositionally true because its underlying rationale (to dignify it with that appellation) is that everyone is different and these differences, including different perspectives on truth must not merely be acknowledged but embraced. The thing is, though, I can’t embrace any other truth than 1+1=2. I don’t care what your perspective is. The diversity proponent claims to have me here because diversity doesn’t apply to math because math isn’t about morals. Math problems have defined answers. Moral problems don’t. But this means that morals are not absolute. Oh, yes, the diversity proponent will say, morals are, well, diverse. Everyone has their own view which must be respected, so morals are not absolute. If morals are not absolute, then diversity must not be an absolute standard, since it is a moral standard, right?
Silence?
Some, Catherine Ross of George Washington Law School for instance, simply ignore thorny problems like this. In her article in the 2010 William of Mary Bill of Rights Journal, she explains that tolerance and diversity are constitutional norms in our democratic society. She never explains the basis for her claim but simply asserts it as an obvious normative proposition. She doesn’t attempt to justify her claim with any actual logical support, because, as noted above, such support doesn’t exist. This passes for academic thoughtfulness.
Diversity’s twin, tolerance, also fails to meet its own standard, for even more obvious reasons. If tolerance is propositionally true, then it means that all of us should be tolerant of each other. Moreover, if tolerance means, as it appears to mean, unqualified and uncritical acceptance of all people, then it must mean that Christians, atheists, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, and any other religious groups must be accepted without qualification and without any critical review of their beliefs. Ironically, however, to refer back to Professor Ross, she actually argues, no doubt with a straight face, that there are limits to tolerance. How can this possibly be? Either everyone is treated the same way and is tolerated, or you really don’t have tolerance. It goes without saying that one cannot logically argue for tolerance but then put limits on it. Nonetheless, this happens regularly.[1]
Let’s go to the University of Oregon: “It is about understanding each other and moving beyond simple tolerance to embracing and celebrating the rich dimensions of diversity contained within each individual.” (Emphasis added). I guess I missed the boat – it’s not about so called “simple tolerance.” Hmm. I am literally scratching my head. I presume simple tolerance means what would ordinarily be understood – that I accept you are different from me and respectfully agree to disagree. This can only mean that the University of Oregon will not accept my belief that some views are just morally wrong. The University of Oregon wants to move beyond this to “embracing and celebrating rich dimensions of diversity.” (Emphasis, again, added). Ironically, however, my view that some moral beliefs are wrong is not embraced and celebrated as part of the rich dimension of diversity.
This is the world which we currently inhabit. I read comments on websites all the time from anti-Christians who rant and rave about how I am trying to ram religion down other people’s throats and trying to force my agenda on people and so forth. Ironically, and illogically, aren’t they saying the same thing? That is, are these folks not simply saying their agenda is to ram their beliefs down my throat and forcing their agenda on me? They don’t want me to be able to speak out.
Now, when someone like Milo Yiannopoulus[2] is invited to speak on a college campus, the entire campus goes into an uproar. I am not defending Milo’s views, which I think bespeak mostly a design for Milo to gain fame and fortune for Milo. Nonetheless, shouldn’t “embracing and celebrating rich dimensions of diversity” include allowing even people with whom we disagree at the most fundamental levels to speak their mind? The answer, at least at the former bastion of the so-called “Free Speech Movement,” UC-Berkley, involves lighting fires and destroying property in order to prevent Milo from speaking on campus. Of course, this was only after non-violent means failed to get the administration’s attention. Hmm. What happened to “embracing and celebrating?” The tortured logic goes like this: we tried to stop him from speaking through all available non-violent means. Milo’s speech is so grotesquely immoral that when non-violent protest fails to work, violent means are acceptable to stop him. Oddly, this sounds eerily similar to the very things so many on the anti-Milo side are claiming Donald Trump is doing and wants to do. I guess fighting fire with fire is fine.
I got to listen to Rod Dreher speak at Southern Seminary recently. He writes at The American Conservative (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/). He suggested Christians must discard wrath as an appropriate response to this kind of thinking. He is not, as I understand his position, in favor of foregoing self-defense altogether, but argued that as we engage others intellectually, especially via social media, we should forego wrathfulness. In light of Christ’s request that God “forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34), Rod may well be onto something. If Jesus could forgive those who crucified him while he was in the process of being crucified, can we not, while we are in the process of merely being irritated by illogical and irrational college students, also be willing to forgive? Jesus replaced wrath with forgiveness.
Look,
I’m just an unknown blogger with a lawyer’s mind and some theological
training. What do I know? That said, I am a bit worried this is not
going to end well. I’d love to think
this is just the 60’s again, but those folks, for all their faults, and despite
some who were insanely radical (let’s blow up everything and start over types),
actually cared about others (I think)[3]. I believe (as I grimace in hope) those folks
were actually coming from an ideal that if we just tried really hard, we could
get along, despite our differences. The current crop seems to think that forcing
people to accept others is a moral imperative which does not involve trying to
get along. You either accept the social
orthodoxy or you are subject to violence because failure to accept the social
orthodoxy is, itself, a violent act. You
don’t accept others, despite their
differences, you accept others because
they are the right kind of
different. Those who are not the right
kind of different are to be opposed, even violently if necessary. It’s almost as if merely being the wrong kind
of different, in itself, is a form of violence.
In
any event, for those of us who are Christians, we cannot give in to the
propensity to fight fire with fire. We
must fight with the word of God. We must
fight with the love of Christ. We must
fight with the understanding that vengeance belongs to God, not us. We must fight the good fight, but never with
the kind of illogic and irrationality and complete lack of honesty exhibited by
the “right kind of different” crowd. We’ll
have to remain the “wrong” kind of different and accept the consequences. It may be painful for some of us or even many
of us. Nonetheless, we must show the
right kind of different crowd there is a better way.
[1]
See Yossi Nehushtan, Intolerant Religion
in a Tolerant-Liberal Democracy, Hart Publishing.
[2]
Milo is a foppish editor for Breitbart.com whose shtick is that he’s a
conservative homosexual who makes outlandish statements about social issues.
[3]
One of my cousins was a 60’s radical of the “blow it up and start over”
variety. Over time he got his college
degree, went on to get married, have a family, and become an entrepreneur who
has worked in manufacturing of various types his entire adult life. My point is that he didn’t resort to violence
– he learned a better way. He is getting
along, despite differences. Thus, my
belief the 60’s crowd was different. I
know this is merely anecdotal evidence, but it’s some.
No comments:
Post a Comment