Diversity Strikes Again

Of all the crises afflicting the West, the rejection of truth in favour of fashionable lies is conceivably the most dangerous. And nowhere is the woke war on reality more apparent than in ‘Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion’ (DEI). As more and more industries are overrun by this bilge, our nations race to unlearn the truths our ancestors had settled millennia ago. Contrary to Conservative Party policy, it’s generally preferable to house your veterans, not your enemies in 5-star accommodations; the military should be selected primarily based on their ability to fight, not on their proclivity for homosexuality; and putting men in dresses does not make them female, no matter how effeminate they were to begin with.

The sole remit of a ‘chief diversity officer’ (a titular crime in and of itself) appears to be the commissioning of those whose inability to perform a role is not only excused but trumped by the range of ‘diversity’ they bring to the table. In sporting terms, it’s the equivalent of picking the worst available squad and hoping your opponents will think favourably of you as they thrash you 10-0. Why not field Jacob Rees-Mogg as England scrum-half at Twickenham next Sunday? Sure, he’ll end up in traction, but just think of the underrepresented, bespectacled multimillionaire Old Etonians, whose hearts will roar as he’s battered from pillar to post, clinging onto the ball for dear life.

The trouble with diversity is that it is a Frankenstein’s monster, with an insatiable desire to correct things that were working quite well before it found them. Its proponents are also running out of straight white men to bash over the head and are now turning to alternative avenues of victimhood. The latest chief diversity officer to overstep the mark in this regard is Dr. Sherita Hill Golden, professor of Endocrinology and Metabolism at Johns Hopkins University. Presumably, between lectures, Dr. Golden exerts her doctoral prowess over the ‘monthly diversity digest,’ a newsletter aimed at supporting inclusion at the university, by informing students which particular group they ought to be hating that lunar cycle. However innocuous the newsletters might usually be, January’s edition was a trifle racy and certainly makes for interesting reading.

While few will raise any eyebrows over ‘diversity’ being chosen as the word of the month (let’s face it, when isn’t it?), the field appears to have narrowed considerably for those not ‘guilty of privilege.’ According to Dr. Golden, the guilty list now encompasses all white people (granted, not many of those left in major cities), the non-disabled, heterosexuals, ‘cisgender people’—i.e., the 99.9% of the population who don’t identify as an alternative gender—all men, Christians, the middle class, the middle-aged, and English speakers.

There’s a lot to unpack here, but you don’t have to be a professor of intersectionality to know you’re being sold a pig in a poke. The inclusion of the term ‘cisgender’—i.e., the entirety of human history before last Tuesday—means that such a list is hoisted by its own petard before you even start. Then there’s the caveat: “In the United States, privilege is granted to people who have membership in one or more of these social identity groups.”

Who exactly is ‘granting’ this privilege? Is it merely public bodies or the population at large? And if so, are those without privilege as guilty of the granting as those with? Who decided it was only ‘one criterion’ that renders you despicably privileged—and more to the point, how possible exactly is it to avoid inclusion on the list? Has Golden even thought this through, and more to the point, has she considered just how high up on the scale she must be herself? Even if we assume Golden is neither male nor white (a dangerous assumption in these times), we have it on reliable authority that she is able-bodied, heterosexual, ‘cisgender,’ Christian, at the very least, middle-class, middle-aged, and, judging by the newsletter, in possession of a tenuous grasp over the English language. Why, then, is this bastion of privilege still in situ?

But then, of course, as she so rightly says, “Privilege is characteristically invisible to people who have it.” How convenient.

The generally accepted definition of DEI is as follows:

Diversity, equity, and inclusion refer to organisational frameworks that seek to promote “the fair treatment and full participation of all people,” particularly groups “who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination” on the basis of identity or disability.

I don’t know about you, but ‘all people’ suggests to me that white men are not getting a fair crack of the whip, and haven’t been for quite some time. But assuming DEI eventually puts them all out of business, what is left for DEI to do but uncover the ultimate victim status? Golden seems aware of this, but one cannot help wondering how happy she will be when she gets there. There can’t be that many disabled asexual transgender Muslim Philo-Semites around, and if they’re the only people allowed to do and say anything, surely they might object to the increased workload?

Naturally, in face of the public outcry, Golden considered a mea culpa was the order the day:

The newsletter included a definition of the word privilege which, upon reflection, I deeply regret. The intent of the newsletter is to inform and support an inclusive community at Hopkins, but the language of this definition clearly did not meet that goal.

So, she’s either an utter liar or incapable of fulfilling her brief—did the university insist on a diversity hire for the coveted spot of DEI chief?

The university itself also offered the customary sham apology:

The January edition of the monthly newsletter from the Johns Hopkins Medicine Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Health Equity used language that contradicts the values of Johns Hopkins as an institution. Dr. Sherita Golden, Johns Hopkins Medicine’s Chief Diversity Officer, has sincerely acknowledged this mistake and retracted the language used in the message.

Neither apology, of course, should be taken any more seriously than the subject of DEI itself. There is nothing remotely divergent within Golden’s statement from the body of DEI literature. As sure as grifters will grift, Dr. Sherita most likely means what she says, even if she is too short-sighted to understand its implications.

The question that faces us now must surely be: how much of this are we going to take? The West is currently teetering on the precipice in its worship of incompetence. DEI, by its very nature, will destroy all excellence and therefore progress. Do we accept our fate or start paddling back? Personally, I make it a principle to engage with as little DEI as I can. I consciously gravitate towards airlines that don’t prioritise mental instability; I enjoy the company of women unplagued by a five o’clock shadow; and (however much I loathe football), I tend to agree with Joey Barton: no one wants to listen to female football pundits, not even women themselves.

Frank Haviland is the author of Banalysis: The Lie Destroying the West, and writes a Substack here.

This piece first appeared in The European Conservative, and is reproduced by kind permission.

If you enjoy my work, please consider buying me a coffee - it would really help to keep me going. Thank you!