Understanding Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

Those words do not mean what you think they mean

Over the last 15 years, the use of the following terms has exploded in media, social media, and other institutions in the wealthy Western world. While the term “Diversity” was often used in the 1990s, and 2000s, the terms “Equity” and “Inclusion” were rarely used (at least not in the same way).

But what do those terms mean?

Where do those terms come from?

Why has their use increased so much in the last 15 years?

Why does this all matter?

Before answering these questions, however, I think it is important to understand why the first three questions matter.

The Progress-based perspective that I argue for in my book series and this Substack column is based on the following assumption.

1. To make the world better, we must first understand the world as it actually is (not as we want it to be).

2. The most significant barrier to our understanding of the world is our own
   preconceived notions.

3. Ideology is the mother of all preconceived notions.

Therefore, ideologies are the most significant threat to future progress. Rather than encouraging results-based experimentation that leads to incremental improvement, ideologies embrace ideological visions that are defined as moral. And that morality is defined as more important than the actual results that are achieved when that ideological vision is implemented in the material world.

Ideologies seek to replace Results with Good Intentions unconstrained by results.

Meet the New Boss; Same as the Old Boss

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are the key concepts of a new form of Leftist totalitarian ideology. For that reason, you cannot understand the terms without understanding the key assumptions of virtually all ideologies of the Left (and some on the Right).

Virtually all ideologies of the Left believe that human history has been a zero-sum struggle between groups. Every person is a member of either:

• Oppressor group

• Oppressed group

Different ideologies on the Left define the demographic groups that fit into the Oppressor group and the Oppressed group, but they all have these categories. They also believe that the lopsided result of this group struggle explain all or most of differences in outcomes between people.

This binary view was first voiced coherently by Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto in 1848, but virtually every ideology on the Left (and some on the Right) has embraced it since.

In addition to the two groups that are constantly focused on, there is also a third hidden group. A very lucky few are Saviors (those who look outwardly like a member of the Oppressor group, but who stand with the Oppressed).

This concept originates from Vladimir Lenin’s concept of the Vanguard (a dedicated group of revolutionary intellectuals who struggle to overthrow the system). Lenin realized that Marx was incorrect in his prediction that the proletariat would achieve a revolutionary consciousness on its own.

Lenin and virtually all subsequent Leftists believed that the Oppressed have a “false consciousness,” so the Oppressed cannot struggle for themselves. The Vanguard, however, understands the world better than the Oppressed and works on their behalf. The Vanguard can forward the revolution on behalf of the Oppressed and govern in the name of the Oppressed.

The term “Vanguard” has fallen from widespread use within the Left although the concept remains. It is hard to miss the messianic connotations of the concept, so I think the term “Savior” captures it best.

---

See also my other articles and podcasts on Ideology:

• Where do ideologies come from?

• Why neither the Left nor the Right have solutions

• Radical ideologies feast on mental disorders

• Why Ideologies Threaten Progress (Part 1 of 3-part podcast series)

• Why neither the Left nor the Right have solutions

• Why ideologies fail (podcast)

• Descent into a man-made Hell: Understanding modern Totalitarianism

• Why the Left endures

• Were Hitler and the National Socialists actually Socialist?

• The Left has hit a historic dead-end

• The Rebirth of the Totalitarian Left in the 21st Century

• The dangers of Soft Totalitarianism

• more

You might also be interested in reading my “From Poverty to Progress” book series:

---

How do you become a Savior?

For the past century, Saviors on the Left identify themselves to each other with their:

• Moral fervor

• Willingness to constantly talk about “the cause”

• Terminology

• Dress, hairstyle, etc

• Consumer purchases

This combination of these creates a powerful group identity among those who perceive themselves as Saviors. In 21st Century America you can become a Savior, by repeatedly using the terminology of:

• Diversity

• Equity

• Inclusion

And agree with the policies of people who use the same terminology (or at least pretend to agree). It is important to note that from the perspective of activists understanding those terms is far less important than creating the outward appearance of agreeing with them.

In fact, actually understanding the terms, is kryptonite to their entire way of thinking.

Appear to “Be nice”, but do the opposite

To understand Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, you must first understand that each of these words has two different meanings.

One meaning (the “Be Nice” part) is used in:

• Public debates

• Media

• Public relations for organizations

• Damage control after public scandals

This makes it very easy for the Woke to establish policies that seem reasonable only to have them become something very different. It also enables them to respond to any controversy with innocuous-sounding counter-arguments that the opponents are simply opposed to “being nice.”

The hidden meaning is:

• Implemented by bureaucracy behind closed doors.

Supporters of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion will constantly shift back and forth between the two meanings depending on the context. In particular, they will claim that DEI is about one thing, while it actually is about its exact opposite.

The purpose of double meanings

Each word is carefully chosen to sound nice to the Center-Left who dominate the middle and upper ranks of American institutions, but has a very different hidden meaning. The fact that the same word can have multiple meanings is nothing new. The difference is that most words evolved to help us understand material reality, the Leftist lexicon of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion evolved to:

• Distort our understanding of material reality

• Manipulate behavior by creating the appearance of group agreement

Each of the terms, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are carefully crafted to:

• Appear harmless to anyone who has the Center-Left world view.

• Give no room for counter-arguments coming from the Center-Left that do not open them up to be attacked as a Rightist.

• Undermine the moral legitimacy of merit-based decision-making that enabled the white, male, college-educated Center-Leftists to rise to the top and middle of our institutions.

• Manipulate the leaders of organizations to dismantle the merit-based decision-making that is key to maintaining highly functional institutions.

More specifically, the terms intellectual traps that have been crafted to manipulate the white, male, college-educated Center-Leftists who dominate American institutions. Leaders of institutions must either use the terms Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion repeatedly or they will be branded:

• Right-wing

• Racist

• Alt-racist

• Trump supporter

• <insert negative term here>

Since the white, male, college-educated Center-Leftists who dominate American institutions are terrified of being called any of those terms in public, they are easy to manipulate.

The importance of “Being Nice”

Go to any playground or nursery in professional-class neighborhoods in the United States. When a child misbehaves in public, mothers and teachers invariable say “Be Nice.” Then when the child stops, the mother or teacher turns her attention back to what she was doing. Children quickly learn that they need to appear be nice to avoid being disciplined.

The smart children learn that:

• It is more important to project an image of being nice rather than being nice in practice.

• Be nice in public, then do the opposite in private (when no can witness it)

Aren’t you nice?

To put it bluntly DEI activists:

1. Change the definition of “Be Nice”

2. Then demand that everyone “Be Nice” by this new definition or be branded “Not Nice” in public.

This game only works for people who are very concerned with the public image that they project to others. Unfortunately, in the social media era, that is a vast swath of American society.

Equity

Let’s get back to our goal of defining the terms. I will start with Equity because it is central to the ideology. Equity is the goal of Critical theory.

Equity sounds like:

The term “equity” was chosen because it sounds like equality and fairness (this is the “Be Nice” part).

Actual meaning in Leftist lexicon:

• Individuals must be treated differently based on their group membership.

• To make up for past discrimination, we must discriminate:

  • against members of the Oppressor group and

  • in favor of members of the Oppressed group.

• Those who believe in Equity believe that it is immoral to treat people the same, because it does not acknowledge the past discrimination faced by the Oppressed.

Now some people believe that Equity is merely a synonym for Equality, but this is not true. Saviors are not the slightest bit concerned when the Oppressed are over-represented in organizations or occupations (for example, blacks in athletics, music, or entertainment).

There is no evidence that any discrimination against the Oppressors is going too far.

The goal of using the term “Equity”

The concept of “Equity” was invented because it is useful to the Left:

• In justifying discrimination.

• Bullying organizations into distributing money and jobs to their followers.

• Enables the small minority of college-educated Leftist with the Oppressed groups to rapidly rise up within organizations

• Gives material incentives to Oppressed groups to pretend to be Woke while having others pay the bill.

Equity ignores:

The entire concept of Equity assumes that unequal outcomes can only be explained by what the Oppressors have done to the Oppressed. If that assumption is wrong, then the entire goal of Equity collapses

Equity defines away any differences in outcome between individuals caused by differences of:

• Culture

• Geography

• Genetics

• Age

• Family structure

• Individual preferences

• Individual life choices

• Work effort

By definition, all differences in outcome are caused by past discrimination, so current discrimination is always justified regardless of any of the above.

The entire concept of Equity also ignores that:

• Most of the true victims of oppression in the past are already dead.

• The current beneficiaries of this discrimination are typically the affluent within the Oppressed group, for example:

  • Blacks with 4-year college degrees

  • Women with 4-year college degrees

  • Hispanics with 4-year college degrees

  • Native Americans with 4-year college degrees

• The poor within the Oppressed groups get nothing but empty rhetoric.

Diversity

Diversity sounds like:

The term “Diversity” was chosen because it sounds like we should appreciate and accept differences between people (this is the “Be Nice” part).

Actual meaning in Leftist lexicon:

In any group of people, one must be hyper-focused on the demographic category that each individual fits in. This denotes whether they are Oppressors or Oppressed.

It is not the individual that matters, only which group they fall within.

The goal of using the term “Diversity”

The concept of “Diversity” was invented because it is useful to the Left:

• It creates the moral justification for racial categorization.

• It forces everyone to focus on the group, not the individual.

• Once you focus on the group, rather than the individual, you are led down the wrong path.

• Once you focus on individuals, their entire DEI worldview falls apart.

Diversity ignores:

Diversity inevitably leads to inequality.

1. Diversity leads to different preferences, which

2. leads to different life choices, which

3. leads to different outcomes, which

4. leads to inequality.

You cannot simultaneously believe in Diversity and Equality as they lead to very different outcomes.

Supporters of Diversity simultaneously believe opposites:

1. Diversity ascribes important differences to outward appearance between groups.

2. Diversity ascribes no real substantive differences between groups (because those might be used to explain differences in outcome).

If there are no real substantive differences between groups, why should we care about Diversity?

The concept of Diversity ignores that:

• An individual is not summed up by their membership within a group (or multiple groups).

• Individuals are unique and influenced by many competing group memberships.

• No individual “represents” a group. The individual just represents themselves.

The concept of Diversity treats also all members of group as identical, which is almost never true. Ironically, the concept of Diversity between groups leads to homogeneity within groups. But this supposed homogeneity conflicts with reality

The racial category of “Black” lumps together:

• Descendents from slaves in America

• Descendents from free persons in America

• Recent immigrants from Africa

• Recent immigrants from the Caribbean

• Rich blacks

• Professional-class blacks

• Working-class blacks

• Poor blacks

The racial category of “Hispanic” lumps together:

• Descendents from at least 26 different nations in Latin America

• Ethnic Spanish who settled New Mexico before the USA was founded

• Families who have lived in the USA for centuries

• Recent immigrants

• Rich Hispanics

• Working-class Hispanics

• Poor Hispanics

Hispanics themselves are largely an genetic and cultural amalgamation of:

• Spanish

• Portuguese

• Black, and

• a wide range of Native American tribes.

The racial category of “Asians” lumps together:

• Descendents from dozens of different cultures on the Asian continent and hundreds of ethnic minorities with very little in common.

• Families who have lived in the USA for centuries

• Recent immigrants

• Rich Asians

• Professional Asians

• Poor Asians

The racial category of “Native Americans” lumps together:

• 574 federally recognized tribes, each with unique cultures

• Rich Native Americans

• Working-class Native Americans

• Poor Native Americans

Racial categories also ignore the huge number of people whose ancestors are from different groups.

• 10.2% of all married-couple households are interracial and the number is increasing.

• In 2015, 17% of all newlyweds were married to someone of a different race (Pew, US Census).

These overall rates of inter-marriage greatly underestimate the level among racial minorities The interracial marriage rate for newlyweds is:

• 27% for Hispanics

• 29% for Asians

• 18% for Blacks.

• For native-born Hispanics and Asians, the rate is around 50%!

Inclusion

Inclusion sounds like:

The term “Inclusion” was chosen because it sounds like we should accept everyone in the group for who they are as individuals (this is the “Be Nice” part).

Actual meaning in Leftist lexicon:

We may only use approved left-wing terminology in public. All other terminology causes “harm” to members of historically Oppressed groups.

The goal of using the term “Inclusion”

The concept of “Inclusion” was invented because it is useful to the Left:

• Justifies censorship of anyone who disagrees with the Left.

• This shuts down debate and makes contradictions within the ideology invisible.

• This creates the illusion that everyone else agrees with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. This takes advantage of the natural human reluctance to speak up on issues when they believe that the group is strongly opposed to them.

• (most importantly) Enables Saviors to live in a self-imposed bubble where everyone agrees that they are a Savior without them actually doing anything to deserve that status.

Inclusion ignores:

The concept of Inclusion ignores that:

• The “harm” caused by free speech is to Leftists, not to the supposedly Oppressed.

• Enforces obedience within the Oppressed, who are kept on even tighter rein than Oppressor groups

Why DEI is doomed to fail

DEI is doomed to fail. The only question is how many people will be hurt before it collapses. The sooner it is evicted from American institutions, the less the harm. But if it is left to fester, the more people will be harmed.

The fundamental problem is that the more successful Leftist activists enforce the doctrine of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion within an organization, the more dysfunctional the organization becomes.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion transform every organizational decision (particularly hiring, firing, and promotions) into a highly politicized zero-sum group struggle.

• The vast majority of individuals can find a reason why they are a member of an Oppressed group.

• Any individual hired or promoted is done at the expense of another group.

Implementation of the concepts of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion within an institution guarantees:

• Incompetent employees

• Terrible management

• Low moral because effort is not rewarded

• Constant anger and resentment

• Treating co-workers as political opponents.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion activists ignore that:

• All organizations are engaged in a competition for scarce revenue.

• The more fully an organization embraces DEI, the more difficult it is to win that competition.

• Organizations that do not embrace DEI gain a huge competitive advantage over those that do.

Leaders of all organizations need to understand that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion activists do not care about the organization (though they claim to):

• DEI activists view all organizations and ideas within modern society as a system of oppression.

• The organization is just a temporary means for acquiring a flow of revenue for themselves and their cause.

• DEI activists will destroy an institution and move on without the slightest sense of guilt.

There is a time-tested alternative: Merit

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are deliberately crafted to undermine the moral legitimacy of the concept of Merit. Regardless of what they believe, merit-based decision-making within organizations is a time-tested method.

To be clear on what I mean by Merit, I define it as:

“having demonstrated an ability or accomplishment that is related to the decision at hand, typically in hiring, firing, and promotion.”

Merit is using a person’s past results in a specific field to predict the likelihood that they will show similar results in a related field.

To get back to Merit, we must:

• Shift focus from the distribution of outcomes between groups

• to the individual’s contribution to society or the organization.

Here is more on the Merit of Merit.

---

See also my other articles and podcasts on Ideology:

• Where do ideologies come from?

• Why neither the Left nor the Right have solutions

• Radical ideologies feast on mental disorders

• Why Ideologies Threaten Progress (Part 1 of 3-part podcast series)

• Why neither the Left nor the Right have solutions

• Why ideologies fail (podcast)

• Descent into a man-made Hell: Understanding modern Totalitarianism

• Why the Left endures

• Were Hitler and the National Socialists actually Socialist?

• The Left has hit a historic dead-end

• The Rebirth of the Totalitarian Left in the 21st Century

• The dangers of Soft Totalitarianism

• more

You might also be interested in reading my “From Poverty to Progress” book series: