Racism Rebranded

If we were going to sell racism to a 21st Century audience, how would we go about it?  Hire portly demagogues with Southern accents to spew out hate rhetoric about Jews, Negroes and foreigners? Recycle KKK myths of white superiority?  Reenact Jim Crow laws?

Hardly.  We would need something much more sophisticated than regurgitating crude racial stereotypes of the Nineteenth Century.  What we would need is something much more culturally contemporary, much slicker and more media-genic, that would appeal to a wide audience of shallow thinkers.  Something like the word "diversity."

In itself, diversity is not a bad thing, as St Paul himself said:  "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit" (1 Cor 12:4 NKJV).  But Paul links diversity to an over-arching unity: "but it is the same God who works all in all."  Modern devotees of diversity worship at a different altar. 

Nor is the term merely an innocuous synonym of "variety."   Diversity is now a social value and a political imperative.   It is even considered an unquestioned good.  It is both means and end:  the means being a legislative agenda and the end being a rainbow school, workplace, and society.  But most especially and essentially, it is a form of stealth racism.

Numerous programs and laws have been created in the service of diversity dictates:  "equal employment opportunity," "equal housing lender."  So far so good: "equal" really means "equal," ie. non-discrimination.  But when equality doesn't yield the desired outcome of racial (or sexual) percentages, our social engineers push the envelope via "affirmative action," or "inclusive admissions."  In the latter examples, ethnicity (or gender) becomes a factor in the candidate's suitability (or lack thereof).  Equality is suppressed in favor of racial or sexual favoritism.  Proponents of these policies may believe that they are beneficial, but nevertheless they are by definition racist or sexist.  That is, they introduce the criterion of race into the hiring or selection process.   This gives their supporters a choice:  they can either argue that there is "good" racism and "bad" racism, or they can practice deception by insisting that these forms of discrimination are not racist.

Most diversity promoters seem to have adopted the latter tactic:  they present it not as a beneficial form of racism, but as a remedy for past and present injustice. Therefore, they believe, the more diversity the better.  They ignore or whitewash (sorry!) the following detrimental aspects of this ideology:

    -- diversity is subjective: which body characteristics qualify for special treatment?  which do not?  who decides?     -- diversity policies are usually administered by a power elite, with no accountability to those subject to their policies     -- diversity activists use specious computations and statistics to justify their demands: for example, if the population of a given city includes 12% self-identified Hispanics, of which 60% are female and 40% are male, does that necessitate that the city council (or student body of the community college) be similarly proportioned?  All such conclusions are arbitrary.     -- diversity reintroduces racial quotas.  Soft quotas are still quotas, and more dangerous because they are secret.     -- the mode of diversity's implementation is compulsion, rather than freedom.  Some qualified applicants for jobs may not be hired, and college candidates may not be admitted, because of their gender or race.     -- diversity assumes a "herd" mentality among Americans:  all whites are privileged, all blacks are oppressed, most Asians are super-smart, etc.  This is called racial profiling or stereotyping, unless practiced by university administrators.     -- diversity has no tolerance for any ideological deviation from itself.  Intellectual diversity is not allowed.     -- diversity "diverts" from any given task.  For example, a teacher in biology is hired not primarily for competence in the subject matter, but because he/she represents a diversity asset to the faculty.  In the near future, a military combat unit may be led by  a female officer, one who is less capable of physical exertion than many men, but who was promoted over them due to diversity requirements.     -- diversity represents a "dumbing down" of whatever profession or school it is imposed on.  It penalizes some excellent workers or students in favor of some mediocre ones.     -- diversity violates equal protection of the law, and introduces different standards of performance based on sex and race.     -- diversity resegregates Americans, dividing them along racial and gender lines, causing them to focus on their differences and rivalries, rather than cooperating in shared opportunities Ultimately, diversity as currently implemented, like traditional racism, is incompatible with the following social values: equality, excellence, freedom.

For a discussion of supposedly beneficial racism, see this post:  ...and Prejudice For a Biblical alternative to diversity's restructuring of society, see the posts:  the Ministry of Restoration 1 and 2


Recent Posts

See All

Bridge-Builders II

In our previous post "All God's Children" we contrasted Bridge-Builders with Wall-Builders: "bridge-builders, though fully committed to the values of their own community seek to create positive relati

Wall-Builders II

In a previous post, All God's Children, we spoke of Wall-Builders in a negative light, as being rooted in the past, and emphasizing the differences between themselves and other groups. In this article

Samaria? No way, Jose!

In Acts 1, Jesus tells the disciples that they will be his "witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." This is a restatement of The Great Commission (Mat 28: 19-20), an