D-E-I-E-I-O

Diversity, Enmity & Inequity.

A Therapist’s View on DEI

Diversity

The capital city of the United Kingdom is as diverse as it gets. London has embraced difference for decades (if not a millennia) to varying degrees of success. I consider it a good example of functioning integration, at least until the recent lack of immigrant assimilation.

Now while I respect the idea of integrating in a new environment, assimilation must be intentional to succeed. Sufficient resources to accommodate migrants should be at least projected and planned for. Somehow the motive appears to be more important than the method.

So, what is the objective for this new type of diversity? The illiberal seem intent to push us to decide which minority is the worst off and what intersectional ailment can claim the greatest victimhood. Either way, the corporate climate supports it, in the honourable guise of financial appropriation. The process still undefined.

The United States stands alone as an immigration case study. What applies in the United States seldom applies outside. After its colonization, it became more diverse. It became a melting pot and had to unite to move forward. We can agree much like in Canada; this process wasn’t achieved in the best way. Conquest will always prioritise power and resources.

Illiberal progressivism has landed with a bang over the past decade or so. Apparently, we have been doing it all wrong. Well-funded marketing campaigns implore us to overlook our existing meritocracy. Even creating a grading system to determine how diverse we all are. Or rather, who is and who isn’t. It’s inevitably become a finger pointing exercise. Who’s good, who’s bad and who just wants to be left alone.

I’m concerned this path of splitting hairs will only compound our difference, rather than highlight collective goals. I understand that’s what many people want, but that doesn’t serve the majority if you do the math. It’s also a privilege of the wealthy and secure, in an ironic turn of events.

Equity

A recently adopted corporate principle that we have been professionally waterboarded with; equity under the premise of diversity. Usually targeting celebrated months or campaigns, which now overshadow more historically significant dates.

We live in a world provided on the shoulders of giants. Our brittle spines deserve very little airtime, if our greatest daily gripe is the temperature of our latte. Boomers and their babies have never been so ungrateful for the safety and prosperity that they have never had to fight for. Worse, they have taken it for granted.

That attitude of entitlement has seeped into our school systems and our organisations covertly. We must all now comply. The concept of equity being fair and just, seems oxymoronic in the hands of humans. This becomes obvious when there are measures to track the differences, to establish inequity. Can we improve on inequity, sure. Should we, maybe. More importantly who determines what inequity is? Meritocracy, please exit stage left.

So, how do we guarantee that this corporate gamble won’t end in detriment? I can’t tell you how many clients I’ve spoken to on the losing end of this stick. The devastation felt, by those who can’t help where they land on the diversity metric. Those who just want to make a positive impact and get paid doing it.

Why are the existing causes not enough, or valid? With diversity in mind, have we assessed an individual’s capacity to care, can they take on more causes? There seems to be a distinct absence for misalignment, or disagreement. An intolerance.

Sowing division isn’t equitable. Maybe equity doesn’t pay, maybe enmity does.

Enmity

Now something that has accompanied this noble cause, is the critique and ostracism of others. Without venturing toward the limit on free speech. It doesn’t appear very inclusive.

I wonder whether this invalidates the cause. Or do we have to pair justice with prosecution. Maybe this is where virtue signalling comes in. The illegitimate civilian attorneys, hired to keep us all in line. With a natural sentiment of being healthily sceptical, I would question their qualifications. Their experience and their honesty. Much like I would phantom fact checkers. If they only lean one way, how is what they are endorsing, factual. How can we trust their bias?

Born a natural pessimist, I’m under the inclination that we are all inherently selfish and lazy. I’m not very sure how you can come out of childhood or parenthood, without that perspective. However wonderful you think your children are, there is always someone who doesn’t agree.

As a parent, hostility is not something that we intentionally teach our children. Unless there’s something seriously awry. Our children will naturally and often to our embarrassment, blatantly announce difference. Yet, the purity of childhood, innocently observes similarities or otherwise. Friendships are born here, dislike need not. Outside of an inherent threat, my understanding is that we teach our children manners. Courtesy and how to apologize. Not to hit or hate.

If you can’t control this, enmity isn’t the path to equality.

Equality

What diversity is attempting to achieve — at least what we’ve been told, is that we should have equality of outcome. My interpretation is that we should all have the same or parity.

Now from a parenting perspective, how do we do this. Taking birth order into account. Age of a child, the age gaps between any siblings. The individual personality, qualities and abilities of each child. The gender. The genetic temperament of each child inherited from mum or dad. Whether that temperament is biological or behavioural. Not to mention similarities to other family members. There are a few variables.

What about divine order or philosophical consequence. Should there not be space for people to succeed or be equipped at different times. Maybe one person’s push, will be another’s pull. Maybe one person’s rejection, will drive them to great inclusion. We all arrive at a different time, with different resources. Who knows the timeline?

Are we seriously allowing illegitimate lawyers, psychologists, theologians or philosophers to actively assess and allocate resources accordingly? How can one accommodate so incisively? Are they arrogant enough to believe they are the change the world wishes to see? Perhaps, the phantom fact-checkers can correct Sod’s law? Reverse inequality.

Either way, there appears to be a lot of people who put an alarming amount of trust in those who govern us. Or turn a blind eye.

Unity

Now while diversity rhetoric implores us to be equal, it fails to treat everyone as such. Especially those who don’t agree with the concept or have a differing point of view. The very definition of diversity. This smoke and mirrors social scam had well-meaning folk marching in unison.

Despite the clear hypocrisy, gaslighting becomes more useful than humility or accountability. While honesty may not prevail in this instance, unity must. Not division.

From what I can gather, we should return to meritocracy and go back to treating people with respect and dignity. If there are marginalised groups, then of course it makes sense to give such people better opportunities to succeed. Yet they also need to be seized.

Corporations may placate genuine causes to sell more products. How honest is their empathy, if there was no money to be made? Virtue signalling has never looked so empty. Can we detach this social movement from its donors and their dividends? I doubt it. This cause is then compromised at its core.

Unity is much cheaper.

Diversity is corrupt.

Diversity is dis-unity.

Unity is our Strength.