Back To Michael's Sword Homepage

What's the definition of diversity

by Michael L. Gonzalez

January 12, 2001

If you're like me, you make an attempt to understand "politically correct" language and it's definition of terms, if for no other reason than simply to be able to read liberal writings and/or to be able to communicate with liberals.  Wouldn't you know it, but just when you think you know what one of their favorite liberal words mean, they come along and switch the definition on you!  I think I've got this thing figured out:  If the liberals believe that conservatives have started to use their liberal-speak, they change the definition of all the words and develop new liberal-speak in order to make sure that conservatives can't sound like liberals.

Here's the latest example of the "old switch-a-roo" by the liberals:

Thursday, January 11, 2001
Chicago Tribune, Print Edition, Commentary, Page 25

When Politics Rules 
Whoever Wins, I Win; Whoever Loses, You Lose 
By Richard Pierce, history professor at the University of Notre Dame. 

[Concerning] President-elect George W. Bush's recent Cabinet announcements . . . Talk-show panelists and commentators remarked that the diversity present among Cabinet nominees and advisers was an attempt to reach out to the African-American community. But African-Americans are wizened members of the electorate who know that the mere appointment of African-Americans does not assure that their varied interests will be represented in the new Bush administration. Moreover, Bush could not have reasonably expected to receive kudos from African-Americans for nominating Colin Powell and Rod Paige for Cabinet positions, while also nominating John Ashcroft and Linda Chavez, who withdrew her nomination as secretary of labor Tuesday.

I bet you're wondering what this is leading up to; here comes the switch-a-roo.  If you're trying to learn the latest definitions of words (according to the liberals who apparently define political correctness), I have highlighted the words whose definitions are "work in process" in this article:
At best the current list of nominees represents racial variety, but not diversity. Racial representation was among the demands of black leaders during the 1960s, but the ensuing 40 years have shown that racial representation is not enough; diversity is not simply a box that can be marked by making an appointment. The logic behind the call for representation was based on the viewpoint that it was important to have access to power and decision-making boards. We must move beyond baby steps to a more sophisticated acknowledgement of the variance within minority communities.

It is because we have accepted representation as the definition of diversity that many people believe diversity has been achieved through President-elect Bush's current nomination of two women, two African-Americans, two Hispanics, one Arab-American, and one Asian-American Democrat.

President Bill Clinton fell into the same trap. He wanted a Cabinet that looked "like America." But to what end? What is the purpose of having an assemblage of racial, gender and ethnic representatives? In and of itself it means nothing because one is not necessarily beholden to the group he or she represents. Remember that it was a woman, Phyllis Schlafly, who led the fight against the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s. And no mention needs to be made of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his support among African-Americans.

Instead of using racial representation as a litmus test, one hoped that the president-elect would strive for ideological diversity. I would rather have a white attorney general, for instance, who has demonstrated a commitment to the enforcement of hate-crime legislation than an African-American attorney general who is lukewarm to those same laws. It is through the interaction and engagement of diverse ideas that the truest path is achieved. If the core commitment of the president and the Cabinet members is to support legislation and programs that are in the best interest of America, then there is no danger in having Cabinet members with differing ideas as to how to reach that goal.

If citizens allow political leaders to congratulate themselves for the diversity of their advisers and stop our investigation once we have made sure that the requisite racial, ethnic and gender quotas have been filled, then we accord them far too much. We must demand more than a multiracial facade that masks uniformity of thought.

While some have opined that African-Americans showed their allegiance to the Democratic Party in the recent presidential election, I argue instead that they recognized that the inclusion of African-Americans at the Republican convention was mere window dressing. A commitment to minority concerns will have to be measured in actions and it will take more than the appointment of African-American and Latino Cabinet members.

Of course, Bush and subsequent presidents are free to continue to pack their administrations with people who hold views similar to their own. But in so doing they forsake the right to claim that they have achieved diversity on their staffs. And if we continue to allow them to make that claim without challenge, then we grant the same indulgence that I allow my son: "Whoever wins, I win. Whoever loses, you lose."

What can I say?  Here, the author demonstrates, once again that the liberals' believe that they hold the keys to the dictionary--meaning that only the liberals' definitions of words are valid.

The author's point can be summarized thus:  the Bush cabinet nominees do not represent diversity because they all hold to conservatism in spite of representing various "minorities."  And so, the author laments the use of the word diversity by the Bush administration to describe the nominees.

The reason why the liberals "just don't get it" when it comes to how conservatives consider diversity, is that the liberals don't understand that conservatives simply don't think like liberals.

The conservatives in the Bush administration see the purpose of appointing a cabinet consisting of people with a wide variety of global origin and gender is to reach out to all Americans with the conservative message.  The conservatives fully believe that the conservative message is the right message for all Americans, and the Bush administration is assembling conservatives from all so-called minority groups who will be charged with disseminating this belief to all Americans.

This approach is in contrast to the liberals' method of dealing with the minority groups (as they have self-defined such groups), whereby the liberals first demonstrate prejudicial bias by stereotyping the viewpoints of their designated minority groups based on their immutable characteristics.  Personally, I am offended by the liberals' demand that I must believe in some stereotypical fashion simply based on my national origin.

The author is clearly saying that a black man who isn't passionately in favor of "hate crime" legislation is simply not representative of black people.  This is a very insulting statement to the black population, as it means that if a black person doesn't agree with certain black leaders they are a traitor to their race.  Hello? What happened to diversity?

Equally ludicrous, the author states that a woman who opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, which arguably was intended to strip females of many aspects of womanhood, could not represent the views of women?  Apparently the author never understood that only a minority of women ever favored the Equal Rights Amendment.

There is no such thing as a group of Americans, who defined by immutable characteristics, all have the same beliefs and opinions; Americans cannot be stereotyped.

The Bush administration is not trying to reach out to blacks by sounding like Jesse Jackson, rather this administration is trying to reach out to blacks with black leaders who offer something better to blacks than anything being offered by the established liberal dogma directed toward blacks.  This is to demonstrate that the liberal mentality of helplessness of blacks as individuals and the resulting dependency upon government for a livelihood is not best for blacks.

This administration is not trying to reach out to so-called minority groups by offering the same hopeless rhetoric that they hear from the liberals, rather this administration will lead with faces which represent all Americans, with a message that is for all Americans, a message which denigrates no Americans, and forces no Americans into pigeon holes!

Yes, herein lies the greatness of America, where citizens are free to think for themselves and are not cast into molds and forced to believe in certain ways as a result of their birth.  In America, a black person is free to oppose racial quotas, a woman is free to support patriarchy, an arabic descendant is free to support Israel, and a Native American is free to root for the Cleveland Indians!

Please, just stop all the labels and accept that all Americans are free to believe as they choose.

[Click] button If you would like to add your yourcomments.gif (1566 bytes) to the UCM Article

<Back to News