THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DICTATORIAL RELIGION OF “DIVERSITY AND INCLUSIVITY” (DEI) WHICH IS NEITHER

 

 

This religion is so totalitarian that it not only demands conformity regarding what you say but also what you believe and how you conduct your life.

 

“A recent study by the American Enterprise Institute found that nearly one-fifth of academic jobs now require so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion” requirements. Here are some examples of what the job listings require:

 

·       How do you think about diversity, equity, and inclusion [DEI], including factors that influence under representation of particular groups in academia, and the experiences of individuals from particular groups within academia?

 

·       Have you been involved in activities to advance or promote a diverse, equitable, and inclusive environment or institution? We note that activities could be large and organized or they could be specific and very personal. Please tell us the role that you played, what you did, what happened, and what you learned from the experience.

 

·       Coming into a new institution will involve changes and being busy! Please let us know how you plan to integrate DEI into your role as a faculty member, including new or existing initiatives you would like to be involved with. https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/12/05/how-science-went-woke/

 

You are required to believe as these institutions do or no job:

 

·       The scale of the resulting purge would make Stalin blush. Of 893 nominally qualified candidates, 679 were eliminated solely due to insufficiently woke diversity, equity, and inclusion statements. In other words, Berkeley used a political litmus test to eliminate over three-quarters of the applicant pool.

 

Consequently, it is no longer just a matter of the freedom of speech but also the freedom of thought and belief. What beliefs are being eliminated? The belief in equality and meritocracy – that one’s credentials, qualifications, and character should govern hiring. This also represents the elimination and marginalization of any dissent.

 

This assault is not limited to hiring. It even affects scientific research. An article entitled “Increasing Politicization and Homogeneity in Scientific Funding: An Analysis of NSF Grants, 1990-2020,” has found that the NSF the main governmental scientific grant distributing body in the United States, with an annual budget of over $8 billion, that the:

   

·       The frequency of documents containing highly politicized terms has been increasing consistently over the last three decades. As of 2020, 30.4% of all grants had one of the following politicized terms: “equity,” “diversity,” “inclusion,” “gender,” “marginalize,” “underrepresented,” or “disparity”…[Consequently] there is less diversity in the kinds of ideas that are getting funded…there has been a politicization of scientific funding…and a decrease in the diversity of ideas supported, indicating a possible decline in the quality of research and the potential for decreased trust towards scientific institutions among the general public. https://cspicenter.org/reports/increasing-politicization-and-homogeneity-in-scientific-funding-an-analysis-of-nsf-grants-1990-2020/

 

The more emphasis on DEI, the more political conformity, the less accountability, diversity of thought, and the less emphasis on quality. The more emphasis on sex, woke, and skin color, the less on qualifications and genuine science. There is also a strong likelihood that the research results will conform to political considerations.

It is argued that DEI is compassionate. It’s terms – diversity, equity, and inclusivity seem to be designed to elicit a sympathetic, although misleading, response. However, they represent the opposite of what they claim. DEI is almost a sure guarantee that any who dissent from this orthodoxy will be eliminated, while those who agree will be given a favored status.

However, any new ideal is promoted with deceptive but “compassionate” terminology. For example, “Critical Race Theory” is promoted with a term that is appealing to almost all of us – “anti-racism.” However, it is the ultimate expression of racism. Ibram X. Kendi, in How to Be an Anti-Racist, wrote:

 

·       “the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

 

What does this mean? Kendi gives us an example in his tweet about the relationship between Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump's third Supreme Court appointee, and two of her seven children, who had been adopted from an orphanage in Haiti. Kendi said:

 

·       Some White colonizers 'adopted' Black children. They 'civilized' these 'savage' children in the 'superior' ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity. And whether this is Barrett or not is not the point. It is a belief too many White people have: if they have or adopt a child of color, then they can't be racist. (Wikipedia)

 

Whatever the white does is racist, whether good or bad. Is this an example of “anti-racism?” Hardly!

 

Take the “Equality ACT.” Sounds good, right? However, the “Equality Act” is actually an inequality act:

·       Where the original Civil Rights Act of 1964 furthered equality by ensuring that African-Americans had equal access to public accommodations and material goods, the Equality Act would further inequality by penalizing everyday Americans for their beliefs about marriage and biological sex.

 

For those who cannot compromise their freedom, this is an act that will exert severe, and maybe intolerable pressure on them, as many have already experienced by losing jobs, businesses, and protection against molestations:

·       The Equality Act would ultimately lead to the erasure of women by dismantling sex-specific facilities, sports, and other female-only spaces. Sexual orientation and gender identity laws that open up sex-specific facilities like bathrooms, locker rooms, etc. to members of the opposite sex enable sexual assault…[It] would cost our country countless charitable organizations, which means fewer institutions would be available to serve populations in need. https://www.heritage.org/gender/heritage-explains/the-equality-act

 

The act has little, if anything, to do with equality but everything to do with coercion and division. Trans people can have their own unisex or trans bathrooms, locker rooms, and Olympics. This nation need not impose one secular religion on all. Instead, we can live comfortably with a true diversity of beliefs. A Jewish cakemaker need not be compelled to inscribe a cake to read, “Jews need another Holocaust.” There are many other cakemakers available to enable us to live in harmony with our neighbors, knowing that we will be free from unjust legal intrusions. Parents need not worry that their child will be removed from their homes for a “sex change,” as is now occurring.

Where are the rights for those who dissent from this imperialistic belief system? They are quickly disappearing. For one example, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland… has directed “the Federal Bureau of Investigation to convene meetings…regarding the “threat” posed by parents who are simply advocating for their children, effectively treating parents similarly to terrorists and other criminal enterprises.” Alliance Defending Freedom sent an open letter to Garland:

·       The impetus for this directive appears to be a letter sent to President Biden by the National School Board Association (NSBA). And the source of these “threats” appears to be parents who object to the politicization of education through the teaching of destructive ideologies, such as critical race theory (CRT) and gender theory, in public schools and who are frustrated by shifting COVID-related mandates that undermine quality education for their children. https://adflegal.org/blog/adf-ag-garland-concerned-parents-arent-domestic-terrorists

 

It seems likely that parents expressing such concerns will be treated as terrorists. If so, this is a clear indication that “free speech” only pertains to the group in power.