DEI and the Death of Civility
The decay of respect for others and decline of shared norms is rooted in the toxicity of DEI's push for inclusion
By Rebekah Wanic
Last week on Spiked Online, Brendan O’Neill highlighted a problem with those who parade around their large aggressive dogs – that they send the message that “I don’t care about your feelings” – and his article goes on to connect this sentiment with commentary on the more general decay in community life. This consequence – a declining sense of community and civility in public spaces - is, at least in part, a direct result of the hypocritical DEI grift that has taken over nearly every aspect of life, from education to politics to entertainment.
Forget the fact that most evidence-based evaluations demonstrate that such programs don’t work and can create the very outcomes they supposedly seek to prevent by increasing workplace tension and identity-based hiring decisions. The more important problem with this toxic ideology is that it uses claimed moral superiority in a grift for power and control. It misappropriates the morally-laden terms of diversity, equity, and inclusion to shut down dissent, fomenting social disorder in the process.
Evidence indicates clearly that the left relies oftener on the tactics of cancellation to exclude and vilify all voices of dissent, intolerant of diverse perspectives that challenge their favored narrative. And make no mistake, it is a fictional narrative. While some disparities in outcomes in the past were the result of racism and sexism, much of the disparate outcomes we see today are not. Things are not perfect, but we are living in a time when people are the least racist and sexist and preference programs that favor just these supposedly “underprivileged” groups have been in place for decades. See the work of Heather McDonald for a full understanding of the extent to which such groups have been privileged with preference.
Fortunately, the law is starting to catch up with the grift. The US Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in college admissions and several law suits have been filed against colleges and universities for their use of diversity statements in the hiring and promotion process. Other legal suits have been filed against organizations that excluded certain racial groups from certain employment or fellowship-related opportunities.
Clearly, many are getting wise to the revisionist definition of diversity that DEI proponents endorse, that is, that diversity means non-white. Less vilified but perhaps more damaging is the movement’s push for inclusion, which supports the usurpation of shared space by power-hungry narcissists and the pathological. In the name of inclusion, we are told we must affirm all manner of derangement, from drag queen story hour to the hostile trans take-over of women’s spaces to critical gender ideology in elementary classrooms. To be offended by a violation of social norms, such as a male teacher wearing obscenely large breast prosthetics, or to even hint at a desire that norms should exist is a violation of the sacred DEI tenants.
But this is wrong. In entering a shared space, there must be a recognition that the needs and wants of others are to be balanced with the needs and wants of one’s own. Social norms help us navigate this challenge. The ideology of inclusion does the opposite by placing self above all else.
The extension of “inclusion” to destroy norms that support productivity in the workplace is an instructive example. Claiming that being asked to show up on time or to maintain a certain manner of professional dress is racist and non-inclusive is to attack the those norms designed to govern shared space. While policies should be evaluated for potential bias, expecting that one can be and do whatever they want in any space is to support childish entitlement, not inclusivity.
It is easy for most with common sense to see that this push for endless inclusivity is untenable. If two different individuals desire inclusion in a space that cannot support both, how can we adjudicate the dispute without leaving at least one party disappointed? There is no way to win without a return to standards based in merit and shared norms of civility that place self second in service of community or shared goals, at times. Not getting what you want is not necessarily a failure of inclusion or an injustice, sometimes it is just a reality of life. The victimhood and derangement celebrated by DEI has damaged society by undermining standards and social connectedness in the wake of their destructive grift.
It is time to reject the tenets of DEI, which promotes an anti-meritocratic, anti-intellectual, illiberal, narcissistic, victimhood-driven way of interacting with the world. It is a tyrannical ideology conducive to neither economic nor social progress. Instead, we must work to reinforce a shared understanding that recognizing and respecting individuals means we often have an obligation to adjust self to situation and not the other way around. We should seek to advocate for programming to support those behaviors that result in the development of resilience in the face of challenge and the cultivation of skills that underlie successful functioning into adulthood - not the me-first, entitled, victimhood orientation of DEI. It time to take a stand against this woke mob of destruction.