There exists a two-thousand-year-old conception of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) that has proven effective over centuries—one that stands in contrast to the modern, ideologically driven framework advanced by much of today’s political left. When understood and applied correctly, this classical model offers an antidote to linguistic distortion and the falsehoods that often emerge from the progressive misuse of moral language.

It is well recognized that political movements frequently appropriate words with long-established, positive meanings and repurpose them to advance new ideological goals. In doing so, they rely on the favorable reputations of such terms to obscure their altered meanings.

Image created using AI.

Words like fairness, hate, common sense, tolerance, and justice have all undergone this transformation in recent decades. Most notably, diversity, equity, and inclusion—the pillars of contemporary DEI initiatives—have been redefined in ways that contradict their traditional sense. In practice, these terms are often employed to exclude dissenting perspectives rather than to welcome them, thereby inverting their original moral intent.

On its surface, DEI appears both noble and unassailable. Who would oppose equal opportunity or the inclusion of individuals from all backgrounds in the American social fabric? Yet the difficulty in critiquing the modern DEI framework lies precisely in its rhetorical appeal. The language of fairness and inclusion conceals a structure that is, in fact, deeply exclusionary and often misleading.

The fundamental flaw of contemporary DEI lies in its emphasis on immutable characteristics—such as skin color, nationality, ethnicity, and sex—as the primary criteria for inclusion and representation. By prioritizing these attributes, it permits the evaluation and condemnation of individuals based solely on factors beyond their control, disregarding character, merit, and ability. The result is a system that fosters division and resentment rather than unity and mutual respect.

A very different—and enduring—model of DEI can be found in the writings of the Apostle Paul, particularly in Romans 12:1-8. In this passage, Paul presents an understanding of human diversity grounded not in external traits but in the diversity of gifts, talents, and roles within the collective body. His metaphor of the human body illustrates a profound truth about social organization: every part has a unique and essential function, and the flourishing of the whole depends on the harmonious contribution of each member.

Verses 4-5 declare:

For just as we have many parts in one body and all the body’s parts do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body...and individually parts of one another.

This vision articulates a model of diversity within unity. Each individual possesses distinct capacities that are indispensable to the larger social body. The eye cannot claim superiority over the foot; each part depends on the others to fulfill its purpose. Even roles that seem minor or less visible are of intrinsic importance to the functioning of the whole. More here.

Paul elaborates further in verses 6-8:

Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to use them properly: if service, in serving; if teaching, in teaching; if exhorting, in encouragement; if giving, with generosity; if leading, with diligence; if showing mercy, with cheerfulness.

Paul identifies what he calls “spiritual gifts,” but his principle transcends the religious sphere. It applies equally to civic and professional life. The emphasis is on the alignment of one’s unique abilities and dispositions with one’s social role. Notably absent from Paul’s account are any references to sex, ethnicity, or race. His concern is functional and moral rather than physical or demographic.

Applied to contemporary culture, this ancient model suggests that individuals should seek to contribute according to their natural talents, interests, and cultivated skills. Every role, whether prominent or humble, holds intrinsic value. Differences in economic compensation do not equate to differences in worth, for there exists an important distinction between economic value and societal value. Both are necessary for the health of the broader community.

And normally, those who follow their interests and abilities enjoy more lifetime happiness and peace than if going for the brass ring out of reach.

The design described by Paul—and reflected in the natural order—offers a coherent, time-tested alternative to the modern distortion of DEI. It emphasizes unity through purpose, equality through moral worth, and inclusion through contribution. It is a model that influenced the philosophical foundations of America’s founding and remains relevant to modern civic life.

By contrast, the contemporary DEI framework—focused on identity categories and collective grievance—produces discrimination, moral inconsistency, and social fragmentation. In abandoning the classical understanding of human diversity, modern society has traded truth for ideology.

The enduring question, then, is this: why would we choose a divisive imitation over a timeless design that has already demonstrated its capacity to unite and uplift humanity?

Lewis Dovland is a passionate observer of America’s future direction with a focus on exposing the “Big Picture” end goals of the progressive Marxist movement and administrative state, and how we can prevail. Email at Lewis.Dovland@gmail.com