The Fatal Folly of Diversity
Diversity is one of those feel-good, virtual signaling words that the left loves to throw around. Along with tolerance, inclusiveness, and sustainability. Words which make the person using them feel good, functioning as stirrups to keep them firmly perched atop their moral high horse.
Diversity refers not to a variety of ideas, as any conservative speaker trying to deliver a lecture on a college campus can attest, but instead to identity markers of skin color, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, traits which most Americans see through without discrimination. As Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of judging people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
Diversity apparently applies to immigration too, specifically the Diversity Visa Lottery. Something most Americans didn’t even realize existed until last week’s Manhattan terrorist attack. The terrorist entering the U.S. from Uzbekistan via this so-called lottery.
Seeing how this played out suggests that this isn’t a lottery, instead a game of Russian roulette. Spin the cylinder and take your chances as to whether a law-abiding, productive citizen comes out of the gun or a radical Islamic terrorist.
Diversity based on nationality or skin color may be fine for a private college or the board of a newspaper (more on that later) but not for the safety and security of the country. Don’t tell Senator Chuck Schumer, though, as he was a big cheerleader of the Diversity Visa Program, noting the benefits while riding his bike around New York City.
Good thing Schumer wasn’t riding his bike in lower Manhattan when the ISIS flag waving terrorist decided to use his truck for a game of “bowling for Allah.” The only diversity in the terror attack was the nationalities of the victims, five from Argentina, two Americans and one from Belgium.
While the media and the de Blasio administration are perplexed as to the motive of the terrorist, President Trump is echoing the view of many Americans through his tweets. Specifically that the controversial visa program should be scrapped.
Not so for the NY Times. They ran an op-ed piece, “We need the diversity visa lottery.” No surprise. Diversity is a cornerstone of the NY Times belief system. On their “Who we are” webpage, they sing the praises of diversity.
“Great organizations thrive and grow on a diversity of thought and ideas.” This explains why the NY Times is not such a great organization these days. The only thoughts and ideas they embrace are those to the left of Hillary Clinton. How many conservative columnists do they have? When was the last time they took a conservative or pro Trump position on their opinion pages?
With a straight face, the NYT, “Calls for us to embrace diversity and inclusion.” Then going further, “Only by having a staff as wide as it is deep, broad in perspective, backgrounds and experiences are we able to capture the multitude of voices of America and the world, with true fidelity.”
Let’s see that staff. Their editorial board has 14 members. Five women, nine men, despite women making up just over 50 percent of the population. 12 white faces, one black man and one Indian man. Based on surnames and photos, no East Asians or Hispanics. I can’t discern gender identity based on a headshot so maybe therein lies their diversity.
But clearly, the NYT editorial board is not the epitome of diversity that they preach. I say, so what? Hopefully their diversity lies in their perspectives and political views, but I suspect all are left of center. But that’s their prerogative as a private organization, despite their moralizing.
The reality is that their board looks more like a group of Trump supporters. From another NYT op-ed, “Mr. Trump is catering to his largely middle-aged, white, middle- and working-class base.” Apart from class, this looks much like their editorial board.
What about Congress? Many members of Congress virtue signal over diversity. How diverse are they?
Looking at the current Congress, it turns out 38 percent of House members and 55 percent of senators are lawyers, or at least hold law degrees. In the general population, lawyers comprise only 0.35 percent of the population. Some diversity in Congress. Any carpenters or plumbers? Truck drivers?
So what’s deadly about this lack of diversity in Congress or the NY Times? Congress passing bad legislation and the media defending it, castigating anyone who dare oppose bad progressive policies. Such as the Diversity Visa Lottery, letting anyone into America based on pulling a lucky number out of a hat.
The monolithic view of immigration by Congress and the media was deadly for those run over in Manhattan.
No diversity of ideas including the extreme vetting or merit based immigration advocated by President Trump and practiced by most developed countries. When the front door is left wide open in the name of diversity and virtue, you never know who will walk in and what they will do.
Perhaps if Congress and major media outlets were truly diverse, reflecting the country they supposedly represent, a common-sense voice would be heard, rather than liberal orthodoxy. Opening a door for debate rather than shutting out opposing ideas. Not only on immigration but also a host of other controversial issues.
Events in Manhattan this week serve as a sober reminder that feeling good and feeling safe may not go hand in hand, and as these events increase in frequency and severity, may actually be mutually exclusive. Fortunately, the President understands this, even though he is one of few within the halls of power who does.