Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) appears “mainstream.” What is it? What does it mean for Americans?
A seeming global whirlwind is encouraging every institution, whether government or private, to adopt DEI. Additionally, with global organizations incorporating the ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) agenda, and “social credit scores” gaining policy traction, DEI has become a preeminent factor within “global scoring” schemes.
Undoubtedly, globalist pressures have accelerated DEI’s being rapidly embraced and overlaid onto entire societal structures seemingly overnight. How will the DEI social standard impact our society and us individually? Should we accept or reject the dominance of DEI?
To answer these questions, we must understand the meaning, roots, and goals of DEI. Then we can decide how to address DEI going forward.
Let’s consider the dictionary definitions of DEI:
Diversity: the inclusion of people of different races, cultures, etc., in a group or organization
Equity: (1) freedom from bias or favoritism; (2) fairness or justice in the way people are treated.
Inclusion: the act or practice of including and accommodating people who have historically been excluded, such as because of their race, gender, sexuality, or ability.
Taking the three terms at face value, DEI should mean providing opportunity and equality (no partiality) for all.
In that light, DEI seems to hold helpful and benign promise. Unfortunately, as DEI is pursued and adopted when workplaces, boardrooms, and global cabals pursue DEI initiatives, the outcomes are less than stellar.
- “White people are not welcome in this space.” (Breitbart)
- “Coca-Cola diversity training tells employees, ‘Be less white.’” (Newsweek)
- “Being white” includes being “oppressive, arrogant, defensive, ignorant.” (Fremont News Messenger)
- “Democrat Chicago Mayor wants to eliminate homework and failing grades.” (Rumble)
- “DEI director fired because colleagues complained her diversity project was ‘unacceptable’ because it [didn’t take steps toward] ‘decentering whiteness.’” (The College Fix)
- “Liberal College Professor Placed on Leave … Suggesting it’s OK to Murder Conservative Speakers.” (Gateway Pundit)
- “New York City Teachers Union to Host Seminar on the ‘Harmful Effects of Whiteness.’”
Some perceive DEI as the perfect mechanism for retribution based on a history of unequal treatment of the past. From their perspective, any unequal treatment toward those who seem to fit the profile of “oppressors/victimizers,” notably, whites, is apropos payback for the generations of unequal treatment and abuse blacks endured in the past. Ironically, the loudest advocates of DEI initiatives have no problems with the people who laid the foundation of human bigotry/racism and inequality.
History confirms there were reasons why blacks were not accepted and appreciated as fully human equals to whites. There were reasons why, almost 100 years after Reconstruction, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., had to profoundly and passionately assert that everyone should stop viewing one another based on skin color and instead focus on the content of character.
History confirms that severe anti-black animus persisted for generations after the Civil War. Why? Reviewing the historical foundations confirms that the supremacy mindset (specifically “white supremacy”) was buttressed, encouraged, and ultimately cemented into people’s minds by certain views of “evolution.”
The facts show that Charles Darwin, the pioneer of the theory of evolution, was the primary culprit in fully instigating unequal treatment of blacks that persisted for generations.
Blacks had to fight for 100 years beyond the end of slavery to receive a modicum of equality primarily because many Americans truly believed blacks were “not equal,” perhaps even “subhuman.” Intuitively, they should have discerned this was not true.
By blindly accepting arcane assertions of prevailing “science,” they were led to destructive conclusions that devastated black lives. Unfortunately, deranged white supremacist machinations precipitated by Darwin’s ideas sullied the reputation and opportunities for blacks.
Charles Darwin achieved worldwide fame and esteem as a scientific mind. Unfortunately, countless minions, including scientific communities, fashioned their personal stance in life based on Darwin’s every word and theory.
Because Darwin’s theories asserted that species evolved on different “branches” at different times, that concept supported preconceived notions that human ethnicities evolved at different rates and stages over time. That meant some groups of people are “more evolved” than others.
Notably, Darwin believed whites fully evolved first and were “superior” with “supreme” human attributes and instincts, while blacks were still climbing the evolutionary scale and, therefore, should be considered “subhuman.” He equated blacks to apes, gorillas, and savages.
In my book, “Woked Up!”, I document how Darwin was motivated by grotesque and arcane theories of supremacy and racism. Darwin was the first world-renowned “scientific” mind to make such assertions, so his theories are responsible for disproportional abuse that has plagued and stymied black progress for over 150 years.
Understanding Darwin and his motivations provides context for why blacks had to demand justice and equality, culminating in Dr. King’s plea that “the content of character” must be the overarching focus for human interactions, not skin color.
White people weren’t judged when their skin was suntanned, so obviously, it wasn’t actual skin color that mattered. Following Darwin’s theories, however, black people’s skin color was seen as an innate mark of evolutionary inferiority.
The legal and social equality of all human beings regardless of skin color should have been obvious. Yet many lives were lost; much blood, sweat, and tears were expended to gain acceptance and an opportunity for equality. For generations, Darwin and his theories gave “scientific” support for the disparate and grotesque treatment of blacks. His theories created new ontological and anthropological distinctions that undermined and destroyed ideas about “all men created equal by their Creator.”
Darwin’s “scientific” assertions about blacks being inferior became common and socially accepted. The mindset pervaded workplaces, preventing blacks from being promoted and climbing the corporate ladder.
In peaceful opposition, Dr. King’s Civil Rights Movement and Affirmative Action programs provided blacks with increased opportunities to advance socially and economically, and opened doors to management ranks within corporations and businesses. Over time, blacks’ mastery of education via advanced education degrees and performance within workplaces helped disprove and overcome the old discriminatory mindset and claims of black inferiority.
Some say that while blacks have overcome much of the racism and inequality of the past, it is still not enough. Those holding this mindset believe since blacks (and certain gender groups) are not represented in proportion to their percentage of the population, this confirms continued racism and inequality. They now demand that irrespective of skills, demonstrated competencies, or merit, blacks and “underrepresented” genders must be provided immediate promotion/placement into corporate hierarchies. This demand falls under the term “seeking equity.”
Fundamentally, the push for DEI initiatives relies upon the assertion that certain groups do not share equal outcomes in workplaces. Advocates say this is evidence that purposeful racism is still present. Therefore, they claim that diversity, equity, and inclusion programs are necessary to achieve the utopia of “equal outcomes.”
Their view directly undermines systems of free markets and capitalism that hire and promote employees based on competence and merit.
Discarding racist Darwinist mindsets, we should recognize that all people are created equal and endowed with equal dignity and worth, not equal competencies—we’re not robots! If we sincerely embrace equal opportunity and maximum diversity for all, we should demand equal opportunity for education, such as via school choice, so the playing field can be level from the onset of early childhood education.
Those who embrace DEI, but wholly reject school choice programs that enable all groups to receive equal education opportunities, should be dismissed as hypocrites.
When accurate history is presented and understood in the context of current DEI agendas and results, DEI is exposed as duplicitous, arcane, and ultimately harmful to the true goals of fairness and justice for all humans, regardless of race.
