Diversity is Uniformity

LRC ^ | 07/15/2003 | Gail Jarvis

[Colofornian]

Participants soon learn that, in a diversity workshop, diversity of opinion is not tolerated.

Well, of course. Diversity is one of the new absolutes. To disagree with this absolute is to be a dissident from the "diversity worldview"--which cannot be tolerated. Everyone must leave the workshop sanctified with identical sanitized opinions.

Sanctified Ah, a perfect "newspeak" term to describe this re-education process.

In other words, the ultimate goal of diversity is uniformity.

Yes, as implied previously, "Thou shalt embrace the value of diversity" if you want to be promoted or hold thy job.

[Cicero]

Very much like the Communist self-education camps in the days of Stalin and Mao, when people were sent to the Gulag or the Laogai to get their brains straightened out according to Marxist principles. Samokritika, if I remember the Russian word for it.

[Support Free Republic]

SHOW ME THE MONEY !!!

[dark_lord]

While the facilitator acknowledged that dissuading this group from its "biases" and provincial beliefs would be difficult, she noted that successful government oversight of hiring practices has drastically reduced their presence in organizations.

Yep. One more reason why older white males find it hard to find new jobs after downsizing. They don't fit the "diversity mix".

[Colofornian]

But valuing diversity requires that we must move beyond our biases and respect differences.

"Valuing diversity" of course, accomplishes just the opposite. This is best borne out by viewing how minority studies are handles on college campuses.

Feminist this and that and "Black Studies" this & that & "Latino this & that" shoes that these folks still love to label all feminists as monolithic; all blacks as monolithic; all hispanics as monolithic. They love to stereotype these groups and then to absolutize these stereotypes by imbedding these principles into courses.

"Diversity" as taught on these campuses is also chopped up into various pie pieces: feminist pie piece, gay pie piece, Latino pie piece, black pie piece, etc. all arranged according to "divide lines"--emphasizing what makes them different. And here is where "diversity" comes through according to its original Latin meaning: "apartness"...it drives people apart (opposite of the original meaning of "university"--within multiple disciplines is one basic worldview--the Bible.

The Ivy League schools were founded upon Scriptural principles.

[Paul Atreides]

Silence can be a form of collusion; one that especially annoys the facilitator. For example, if you are standing in line in the cafeteria or waiting for an elevator, your silence could be injurious to a member of another cultural group standing near you. It might give the appearance that you do not wish to converse with them as an equal. Also, body language, such as not making eye contact, folding your arms across your chest, and dismissive facial expressions can be hurtful to members of other groups. The facilitator made it clear that collusion is always wrong whether intentional or unintentional.

So, now you cannot even choose to whom you wish to associate. You can't have a moment of quiet reflection to yourself. You can't even have a bad day and not want to speak to anyone.

If some people are that sensitive, why don't they just end EVERYONE's misery and kill themselves. It would open up some jobs for people who don't have to have their hands held throughout their entire lives.

[Colofornian]

organizations must "implement and manage diversity"

Diversity is to be "managed." It starts off w/quotas on personnel and winds up with quotas on joke types, monitoring silence and non-verbal body language, etc.

The Sovereign Ones have entered into their next phase of behavioral control: New Thought...it's not just NewSpeak any more, they have One Mind in mind.

[dark_lord]

Yes. The "Snakes from the Dark Side" (who pull the strings running into the little brains of the Leftists) are playing 'divide and conquer'. It is full court press time against America now that their World Socialism via the USSR gambit has gone belly up.

[Colofornian]

Attendees were given verbal and written instructions to abandon the Golden Rule in favor of the "Platinum Rule": "Treat people how they want to be treated." This directive not only offended religious sensibilities but many felt it was contrary to common sense.

This violates common sense in more ways than one. This assumes that co-workers always know how a co-worker wants to be treated. In other words, it assumes mind-reading.

And, of course, if your "diversity" objective is One Mind, then everybody should be thinking on exactly the same uniform wavelength.

We don't even know which employee is gay, leaving the question of respecting gay employees as a separate one.

If a gay employee wants to be respected, then he or she better realize character counts. As Josh McDowell said, all sexual relationships involve character since it involves intimacy and communication between two people. Therefore when someone jettisons character due to their sexual choices, don't expect others to have their morals changed with abra cadabra training sessions. This is like demanding folks during the height of the Clinton scandal to "respect" him. The office/position can be respected; the person? No way!

[Ohioan]

I maintain that these Diversity Bolsheviks are "Frustrated and distraught idealists." This is the term used by one scientist to describe individuals who want to make the world perfect – perfect according to their definition.

You are much too kind. These people are compulsion driven neurotics, not idealists. What they cannot stand, is the fact that people really are different. In the name of "diversity" they want to force everyone to imagine that human differences are all environmental, and may be swept away by collective action. Both Communism and National Socialism reflected other aspects of this same malady. (The Communists and Nazis, of course, had a little more direct way to eliminate people whom they deemed resistant to their idealism, but the principle is basically the same. They also used the same type of brainwashing techniques the American Left uses, in situations such as you describe. The Communists and Nazis also had the same lack of respect for parental guidance, as do these people.)

This sort of thing has been going on, in one form or another for two generations, and has created an intellectually absurd climate, which actually works to the distinct disadvantage of virtually every group in America. (See Life & Politics In A Pavlovian Kennel.)

No these people are not idealists. They are very messed up individuals, whom we have allowed to poison our perception of reality.

William Flax

[ladylib]

What is wrong with people? Everyone who is annoyed by this (probably everyone) should just flip the bird to the "facilitators" and walk out of the room.

There is safety in numbers.

[cwb]

The saying that "liberalism is a mental disorder" is becoming more clear, day by day.

[jonno]

...the "Platinum Rule": "Treat people how they want to be treated."

Simple: "Uh, Ms. Facilitator, I want my disrespect of your idiotic ideas to be treated respectfully - by you".

[gogov]

[Skywalk]

In fairness, it's probably not that anyone is complaining about not being spoken to, but that these fascist brainwashers are dreaming up every possible way they can to inflict their ideology on their victims, which includes making them conform in their moments of privacy or silence.

[NewHampshireDuo]

Attendees were instructed to stop regarding certain modes of dress or grooming as more "professional" than others. Clothing, body adornments, and grooming may vary widely from one cultural group to another and it is wrong to insist on one form only.

Many years ago (late 70s) I was a freshly minted supervisor working for a multibillion dollar computer manufacture (since gone extinct). I went to many variants of these sessions. One that sticks in my mind was a one day program on how to interview minorities without being offensive or (most important) getting sued. A point that kept getting repeated over and over was how blacks usually have more garnishments than whites and we should be sensitive to that. I was thinking "lots of rings and beads" and the like only to find out later in the day that they were talking about garnishing of their wages.

However, at about the same time a Hispanic coworker of mine interviewed for a position with a very successful (still so) audio company. At the end of the interview the HR guy actually said "Well, for a Hispanic you're pretty sharp." He walked out at that point.

The company I currently work for is just interested in having good workers. Every year or two a short email goes out reminding everyone of the sexual harrassment policy and that's it.

[The Duke]

What childish fools the children of the Americans have become.

[Paul Atreides]

You are probably correct, but I have no trouble believing that some permanent victim complains about someone not speaking to them. If it hasn't happened already, it will probably happen after seminars like the one in this article.

[ThinkFreedom]

Any company that seriously takes up these initiatives are heading for Chapter 11. Here's why.

Employee #1 is a serious, well trained, productive, intelligent worker. They're white, anglo-Christian (goes to church every sunday, lives a moral life, admires successful people and has strong Protestant work ethic) and just want to get things done. They get to work, do their job, and want to get a paycheque at the end of the week. They dress professionally, get to work on time or early, and would rather get their job done than stand around for half an hour listening to rants about how minority x - oh sorry - cassarole ingredient x [rolls eyes] is oppressed by him. In other words, they're a model employee.

Employee #2 is lazy and sloppy. When they finally do get to work, they do things over time and over budget. They're immoral and would rather sleep around than go to church. Why, if they were part of the "dominant culture" they would have never been hired.

Lets look at some situations:

Employee #1 only got to work 5 minutes early today instead of 20 minutes early. They came to work in a new, black suit, they're shoes are polished, their white shirt is clean and ironed, and they're wearing a conservative - say blue - tie.

Employee #2 got to work an hour late with some kakamaime excuse about traffic. Their hair is knotty and probably hasn't been washed, their shirt is crumpled, they're wearing a lot of beads and the like, and their shoes aren't polished.

Employee #1 gets reprimanded for upholding the dominant culture, employee #2 gets praise in the name of "tollerance" and "cultural diversity".

Employee #1 has a report he needs to get over to the folks in marketing. They walk straight there and back, getting back to work as fast as possible. No time to talk to anyone along the way - black, white, male, female, straight, gay, whatever; there's work to do.

Employee #2 takes a big detour via the coffee machine, and stops to talk to every minority along the way. What should be a 5 minute walk takes them nearly an hour - over 50 minutes of productive time wasted.

Employee #1 gets reprimanded for being productive, and doubly reprimanded for giving minorities the silent treatment. Employee #2's blatant time wasting is "promoting tollerance". They get praised.

Employee #1 is courteous, modest, and polite to all people. They get good deals with suppliers, they do the work on time and on budget, they're a good salesman (whoops, there I go again... "salesperson"). They're a very productive employee.

Employee #2 is inept and incompetant. They lose and annoy customers, and get ripped off by suppliers. They are rude and arrogent to everyone except for other minorities, who they treat like they "want to be treated". they goof off, and make stupid mistakes. Their projects go over time and over budget. But they're a minority.

You get the general impression of what these 2 make believe workers are like.

In a company that "embraces diversity", criticising employee #2 would be "intollerant". Employee #1 is a model employee, and worth a fortune to their company - there's no boss or owner in America who wouldn't want a guy like this working for them. And they need to be reprimanded for it.

Employee #2 would have a great record, employee #1's record would probably be filled with "serious violations". Employee #2 will be promoted to senior management while employee #1 languishes in drudge work. And when the company needs to let people go, employee #2 stays, employee #1 goes. And when it turns out how much employee #1 is worth to the company and that they need to hire people to take the position, they'd go with 2 employee #2's rather than 1 employee #1.

Now lets go down the track about - 10 years. The "intollerant" employee #1's have all been fired - they all now work for the competiton. Our politically correct company is filled with employee #2's from senior management on down. Yeah, they're losing fistfulls of money each month, but they're really diverse and tollerant now!