The same left that insists on creating diversity also proclaims that “we are all the same”. They go a huge leap further than “equal under the law” – they seek to erase boundaries and differences between the genders, between ethnicities and ultimately between individuals. This is revealed by the popular notion that ‘positive stereotypes are bad, too’ and by those pushing the idea that ‘anything men do, women can do just as well’ (but not the other way around, of course). Any acknowledgement that people are different, and that average skill sets and characteristics differ between subsets of people, is taboo. But if group averages don’t matter and the differences are eliminated, what good is diversity anymore? Equality and diversity, two of the left’s favorite buzzwords, are contradictory terms. This is why the left is so inconsistent in its own logic and ideology.
Taken to its logical conclusion, we are all unique little flower petals who should not be held to any standard or average, and whose accomplishments are all of exactly equal value. We need standards and averages, of course. Not just for public policy (which the left is generally quite fond of making, so this should appeal to them), but also for self development and ultimately the collective good. After years of social engineering, more women may be pushed towards careers rather a role as a mother or housewife. As a result, birth rates plummet and many children spend a significant part of their week in day care centers. While it is important that women get the same chances and opportunities as men, is it really necessary to push them away from motherhood, and when does the cost for this type of social engineering become too high?
Average skill sets for different ethnicities is another controversial issue that we are supposed to pretend does not exist. Some universities lower their admission standards for specific ethnic groups, and the left wants us to celebrate the support this offers to (in this case) the black community. They gladly ignore that other ethnic groups are put at a disadvantage. A 2018 report showed that Asian American applicants have to score 250 points higher than black, Hispanic or Native American applicants to be admitted to Harvard University.
Will this produce a healthy academic environment? Is it good for the Asian Americans who are rejected while they would have a better chance at succeeding than the black, Hispanic or Native American students who do make the cut? Is it good for that latter group that they are thrust into an academic environment that is actually deemed above their abilities? Is it good for the black, Hispanic or Native American students who had high SAT scores and were accepted based on their own merit rather than ethnicity, but whose achievements may be diminished by assumptions that they have received preferential treatment.
If this works for Universities, then why do we not have different admission standards for different ethnic groups in the NBA?
Because when we watch basketball, we want to see the people who play it best. And in academia we should demand no less. Those who excel in their field will perform better, will be more able and driven to better themselves when surrounded by people of similar ability. No NBA team is going to get better by letting me join ‘because the white guy deserves a chance too’. And no research lab is going to get better by having me around either. There is a very good reason why we have standards and norms.
What purpose is served by us ignoring innate differences between groups of people? In the most positive case, it is that people will not be judged according to the averages of the groups they belong to – but denying that there are different averages is not going to make the differences go away (we can say women are just as strong as men, but most men will still be stronger than most women). All other explanations are far more grim: a disincentivized, homogenous and unorganized population is easy to control, while people who excel are a threat to the powers that be, especially when unified. We would all be individuals, with nothing outside of ourselves to identify with, nothing by which to measure ourselves and nothing to aspire to. But Big Government, Big Media and Big Business will not approach us as unique individuals – our uniqueness will be what makes us generic. We would become one voter block, one target demographic – and we would have no infrastructure to challenge our rulers.
Perhaps there is no design behind the inaptly named “positive discrimination” phenomenon at all. Perhaps it is the logical result of leftism and the theory has only been thought out up to the exact point of implementation. Perhaps this is part of the disorder that the Cultural Marxists seek to sow. The outcome in reality is and will be tragically different from what most people on the left appears to expect.
The classical demand is that the state ought to treat all people equally in spite of the fact that they are very unequal. You can’t deduce from this that because people are unequal you ought to treat them unequally in order to make them equal. And that’s what social justice amounts to. It’s a demand that the state should treat people differently in order to place them in the same position (…) To make people equal [as] a goal of governmental policy would force government to treat people very unequally indeed.Friedrich Hayek
One problem with the left’s fight for “equality” and “diversity” is that in theory they are asking for equal treatment, while in reality it quickly devolves into a quest for special, preferential treatment. On paper, they are asking for the acknowledgement of different convictions or ways or life, but that turns into a push to either establish a new ‘norm’ or to deny that there is (or ever was) a norm at all.
The British Medical Association told NHS doctors in 2017 to no longer call pregnant women ‘expectant mothers’, but ‘pregnant people’ instead. There was precisely one transgender pregnant person at the time, versus 775,000 women who give birth in Britain each year.
In The Netherlands, the theme of the 2019 Book Week was chosen to be The Mother The Woman (De Moeder De Vrouw in Dutch) after a classic poem by Martinus Nijhof. Upon the announcement of the theme in June 2018 The cultural industry erupted in protest, because “I thought we agreed by now that it is quite possible to be a woman, and even happy at that, without giving birth to children, but I guess I have misunderstood”, as editor Ianthe Mosselman put it in an opinion piece in De Volkskrant newspaper. Clearly, it is not enough to acknowledge that womanhood can be fulfilling without having children (which is undeniably the case now, given our historically low reproductive rates) – we have to all sit around and pretend that women are not or should not want to be mothers, ever.
Equality is not about equal rights. If it were the fight would not be fought so vehemently in the parts of the world where equal rights are enshrined in laws and constitutions. Equality is not even just about being equal. The left is not interested in offering the same opportunities to all – it is interested in engineering the same results. If (groups of) people won’t make the choices the left wants them to make, these groups must be targeted, incentivized, subsidized until they start to change.
Why is it such a problem to the left if there are different trends in different groups? Why would it not be OK for women to, by and large, favor being a successful parent (mom), rather than striving for the top in their professional echelon? While men perhaps generally favor becoming a top executive over becoming a great parent. There are people in both groups that make different choices, and that’s fine. That is equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome is engineering life in such a way that people start making different choices than they are biologically or culturally inclined to do.
And the left wants to achieve this for no other ostensible purpose than to create ‘diversity’. Except it isn’t really diversity at all, because it leads to people (based on group averages) all making the same choices. The same proportions of every group would be going into exact sciences, the liberal arts, becoming top tier professionals or being great parents.
The only thing that is actually diverse about the left’s idea of diversity is people having a slightly different appearance, while having the same behavior. It reduces people to what their skin color is, or what their genitals look like. This is both the beginning and the outcome of identity politics, and the basis of most (if not all) of the left’s social engineering programs.
The left-wing establishment may grant itself a monopoly on all matters related to equality and diversity, it is actually the right which is more realistic, more fair, more social – and ultimately more diverse.