DEI is dying
But like Marxism, it may never die
I have always been fascinated by language and its evolution. The way it reflects and affects both reality and our perception of it. The way it can be used and abused to serve particular ends.
As an appendix to 1984, Orwell wrote an essay called “The Principles of Newspeak”. The concept was inspired by the totalitarian propaganda of his time, both of fascism and communism.
Newspeak is designed to limit thought and used to enforce conformity. Some prominent features of newspeak are judgment, emotions and cognitive dissonance, or ‘doublethink’ in Newspeak parlance.
I grew up in the communist world; I grew up with its propaganda. Eventually, I came to understand the importance of the underlying concept, best expressed in the engraving on Marx’s tombstone:
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways -
the point, however, is to change it”
DEI is the perfect example of Orwellian doublethink, newspeak and the neocommunist drive behind it. The essence of communism is that we don’t need to understand the world as long as we have the will to shape it, and the power to do it.
DEI, The Great Reset, Build Back Better, the call for ‘democratic’ socialism, various censorship, fact-checking and speech-control initiatives are just the latest reincarnation of the global communism project.
Communism, the cultural revolution and DEI all start with the assumptions that in our natural state, we are all the same; that there are no differences in our abilities, attitudes and personalities. Any observable difference is either irrelevant or the result of ill will, expressed in discrimination.
If you notice the patent stupidity and the cognitive dissonance in the circular logic of the claims, you just have proven that you are guilty of crimethink, oldthink and false consciousness. It means that you are a bad person in need of reform. DEI is the path to that reform.
We can explore that path by looking at their idealized narrative; exposing the slight of hand; stating the inevitable outcome and exposing the intended goal.
This is a fair approximation of the idealized narrative from Grok:
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives aim to create environments where individuals from varied backgrounds feel valued, respected, and empowered. The primary goals of DEI are:
1. Diversity: Increase representation of people from different races, ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, abilities, socioeconomic backgrounds, and other identities in workplaces, schools, or organizations.
2. Equity: Ensure fair access to opportunities, resources, and advancement by addressing systemic barriers and historical inequalities that disadvantage certain groups.
3. Inclusion: Foster a culture where everyone feels welcomed, heard, and able to contribute fully, regardless of their identity or background.
These goals often interlink to promote fairness, reduce discrimination, and enhance organizational or societal outcomes through diverse perspectives.
(in most cases, emphases are mine.)(and if you can explain to me the last highlight, I will give you a medal)
The idealized goal is a world where everybody feels good and comfortable, where differences don’t matter, where we are all accepted regardless of who we are and whether our contribution have any value whatsoever.
… while everybody sings Kumbaya.
To quote Marx again:
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”
“In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.”
The idealized narrative of DEI is the vision of Karl Marx. There are no meaningful differences, everybody is equal in any material way, and everybody can do absolutely anything they want to do.
DEI is Marx’s communism with a nod toward Mussolini’s corporatism. All supervised, of course, by an AI empowered Davos-like supranational totalitarian institution.
We could also see it as an expression of Rousseau’s general will.
The essence of every socialist/communist/fascist/totalitarian project is the dissolution of individuality in the undifferentiated collective. In its DEI implementation it is broken down into smaller units. It is not the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, it is communities, businesses and institutions fighting racism, sexism and any number of other isms and phobias. The expectation is the creation of undifferentiated units fully representing the whole.
Of course it is idiotic, of course it is delusional, of course it is unfeasible.
But most of all, it is fraudulent.
Diversity is the death of difference.
The sleight of hand with Diversity is that it is an unachievable goal. The expectations can never be properly defined. And I don’t just mean intersectionality. Each of us has a complex set of overlapping, coexisting identities. I have at least a dozen myself.
Diversity, the focus on what makes us different, is a divider, not a unifier.
The unavoidable consequence of the expectations is that it creates arbitrary criteria and makes everybody lie and bullshit about it. The consequence is not a bug, but a feature.
The intended goal is to use the compliance requirement as a blunt weapon to bludgeon any organization that of stepping out of line.
The goal is to make identities more relevant than contributions. To make what’s important – competence, intelligence, industriousness - irrelevant.
Equity is the descent into mediocrity.
The sleight of hand with equity can be best illustrated with this quote from Hayek:
“From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time” (from The Constitution Of Liberty)
The ‘equal outcome’ definition of ‘equity’ is relatively new. It had to be created to separate it from Hayek’s logic. Equal opportunity is an individualist concept. Equity is a collectivist one.
The unavoidable consequence is mediocrity at best, decrease of productivity and loss of competitiveness at worst. The drive for mediocrity is a spiral into self-destruction.
The intended goal is the assault on competence hierarchies, achievement and creativity.
Inclusion is an exclusive club
The sleight of hand with inclusion is that it comes with conditions:
If you don’t submit to the whole set of the expectations you are out.
You are either a good communist or the enemy of the people.
Communism killed about a hundred million people who found themselves outside of the inclusion club.
The unavoidable consequence is the slow death of competent decision making. If the focus is switched from the tasks to the feelings of the participants and wasting time on accommodating them, then the survival instinct of the organization will switch to less collective decision making. ‘Inclusion’ will atomize and alienate. The alternative is authoritarian decision making.
The intended goal is the unavoidable consequence: authoritarian decision making.
The DEI goals are not designed to make organizations work better.
They are designed to make people working in them feel better.
DEI, with its heavy-handed coercive policies, cannot even do that.
It does not even help the losers who supposedly benefit from it.
It will not elevate but corrupt them.
The diversity hires, the poor performers and the undeservedly praised will not get better at their jobs and will not improve in any way.
DEI is dying because it does not do any good, but it is far from dead. It lives on feelings, wishes and desires.
Heaven is a good story. Communism is a good story. Even DEI is a good story for some.
A certain portion of humanity that we can broadly describe as the political left have a preference for what DEI, and the socialism in general offers.
No judgments, no expectations, no responsibility.
There is safety in the crowd, there is safety in irrelevance, there is safety in mediocrity.
Yesterday, as I was in the middle of writing this post, I took a break for a BBQ where I had a fierce conversation with a young, Austrian high school teacher. She helped me understand the emotional stand behind the DEI attitude.
I could call it militant non-judgementalism.
A pathological fear of making judgments, a refusal to even think about questions that may lead to conclusions that could be seen as a judgement.
We talked about different subjects, but the conversation always ended up in a dead end.
Our conversation came to an impasse several times, always the same way. I asked a question, and she answered, “I think differently.” When I asked how, the answer was “differently.” She never offered a counterpoint, a counter argument or any criticism. She just said: “I think differently.”
She was very polite, but what she was thinking, was written all over her face. The virtue signaling, smug moral superiority with the subdued smile sending the message: “I am better than you. I am good and you are not. I don’t have to answer you. Such opinions don’t deserve an answer. I am entitled to my opinion and that’s that.”
Please tell me that you can picture it in your head!
She clearly sees herself being on the right side of history. I don’t know if she believes that she represents the majority opinion, but I would bet that she does.
She clearly abhors facts, statistics and logic. Facts and their validity can be disputed; statistics leads to generalizations and potentially discrimination; logic is just an opinion or a narrative.
Our conversation wasn’t exactly honest, but a conversation with a leftist hardly ever is.
She didn’t tell me what she thinks about my arguments nor did she tell me what she thinks of the subjects.
What I did not doubt is the honesty of her feelings. The desire to belong to the righteous team, the desire of not to be judged and measured. Facts and logic are a threat to her world-view, and by extension, her very identity.
I would be easy to blame her attitude on her generation, but people of mine can be far worse in how they get horrified by ideas different from theirs.
What is special in my generation, is how shamelessly and deliberately they are willing to lie to score points in political debates.
DEI is an expression of the Marxist attitude. It may DIE, but as long as the attitude is alive, a new spawn of Satan will come forth to replace it.
More from here
References
This is an excellent history of the Frankfurt school and its devastating influence on American higher education. Remember the title! Youtube keeps removing it.
Like everything else on Substack, this is a reader supported publication.
You can help it by following or subscribing.
You can engage with it by clicking on like and/or commenting.
A ‘like’ costs nothing and is worth a lot.
You can help this Stack grow by sharing, recommending, quoting or referencing it.
You can support it by pledging your financial support.
Any and all of it will be much appreciated.
I don’t have to picture it in my mind. I live in Puget Sound. I’m completely surrounded by it. I’ve given up even trying to talk to my sister or mother beyond small talk. I raised critically thinking, independent, resilient kids. They get the smug passive treatment but at least they know who they are.