One of the greatest mysteries of our time is how people who claim to be the intellectual elite seem to value diversity of skin color over diversity of thought.

An acquaintance of mine in New York just had to give up his career plans there and start studying for a different career in another state because he came to the conclusion that a white male with the best of academic credentials and life experiences would not be able to find or hold a job in a field dominated by women, nonwhites, and transgenders of all variations in a "liberal" bastion.

One would think that even more self-evident than any of the self-evident truths in the Declaration of Independence is that in the arenas of public discourse in general and universities in particular, where the minds of the leaders of tomorrow are molded, diversity of deep thought — or any other kind of thoughts — should be more important than diversity of skin-deep skin color.  Instead, more than 95% of professors at many of our country's leading universities (not to mention the Mueller investigators, 100%) support the liberal agenda, in theory, and openly discriminate against conservative professors and students, which actually means they are not truly liberal in fact — more like fascists, in fact — masquerading most unconvincingly as liberals in philosophical and practical conviction.  Were hypocrisy to be a justification for legal conviction, they would overflow our prisons.

No wonder one of the clearest intellectual thinkers of our time, Dennis Prager, founder of Prager University, repeatedly notes that many graduates of many of the leading universities of our country who study the social sciences may indeed graduate with more knowledge than they had when they first matriculated, but their indoctrinated over-percolated minds leave with less wisdom.  The leading "intellectuals" of our time all too often teach what is counterintuitive and against common sense.

An entire university course could and should be devoted to the patent absurdity of insisting on diversity of skin color over diversity of thought or of values.  Some "blacks" have a lighter skin color than some "whites," and there are blacks with more conservative values than some whites, and that is without even discussing what happens when a black marries a white.  For true diversity of color, would every employer have to check the DNA of every applicant for every job?  Would every employer have to keep track of which features of issues of mixed marriages are "white" or "black"?  President Clinton may have had his faults, but he was so decent in terms of civil rights that he was referred to as the country's "first black president" until Barack Obama came along, and then Obama turned out to be so racist against whites (even though he is half-white himself) that he condemned Clinton as racist.

Only a university-indoctrinated person truly devoid of hypocrisy would have to argue, for consistency, that someone four feet tall would have to be recruited to play on every basketball team, and a skinny skinhead or pig-headed person would have to play with a pigskin football on every professional American football team in order to achieve diversity.  Why should merit and qualifications apply on the basketball court, where grown men and women spend all their time bouncing and throwing a round ball, and why should they apply to a football team, if the eggheads in the liberal thoughtless think-tanks and universities would decide, if honest and consistent, what happens in sports?  Clearly, merit prevails when "dumb jocks" are in control.  Why should hypocrisy and stupidity continue to prevail in think-tanks and universities when "intellectuals" are in control?

If true diversity is desirable, diversity of thought should be deemed more important than diversity of skin color so that every faculty department in the social sciences and every think-tank should be required to recruit and hire at least one mainstream Republican, one conservative anti-Trumper, and one person who trumpets pure Trumpism.

Those who feel that diversity for the sake of diversity is not desirable and who recognize the current popularity of diversity for what it is — a mere democracy-disguised way to promote anti-democratic quotas (benefiting only some minorities over others) might revert to a novel idea: selecting people based on relevant and relative merit.

Ron A.Y. Rich considers himself a liberal with common sense.