It’s nearly impossible to have even a short
conversation with a college administrator, politician or chief executive
without the words diversity and inclusion dropping from their lips. Diversity
and inclusion appear to be the end-all and be-all of their existence. So, I
thought I’d begin this discussion by first looking up the definition of
diversity.
According
to the Oxford Dictionary, diversity is “the practice or quality of including or
involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of
different genders, sexual orientations, etc.” The definition gratuitously adds,
“equality and diversity should be supported for their own sake.” The standard
definition given for inclusion is involvement and empowerment where the
inherent worth and dignity of all people are recognized.
Here’s my question to those who are wedded to diversity and inclusion:
Are people better off the less they have in common with one another? For
example, women are less likely to be able to march 12.4 miles in five hours
with an 83-pound assault load. They are also less likely to be able to crawl,
sprint, negotiate obstacles and move a wounded comrade weighing 165 pounds
while carrying that load. Would anyone argue that a military outfit would
benefit from diversity by including soldiers who can and those who cannot march
12 miles in five hours while carrying an 83-pound load?
American Contempt for ...Walter
E. WilliamsBest Price: $5.90Buy New $13.13(as
of 08:30 EST - Details)
You say, “Williams, the
military is an exception!” What about language? The International Civil
Aviation Organization has decreed that all air traffic controllers and flight
crew members engaged in or in contact with international flights must be
proficient in the English language as a general spoken medium. According to
UNESCO, there are about 7,000 languages in the world. The International Civil Aviation Organization could promote
language inclusiveness by requiring language rotation. Some years,
Cebuano (of the Malayo-Polynesian language family) and in other years
Kinyarwanda (of the Niger-Congo language family) could be the language of
pilots and air traffic controllers. Keep in mind that it is claimed that the
great benefit of diversity and inclusiveness is that it promotes and fosters a
sense of belonging. It values and practices respect for the differences in the
talents, beliefs, backgrounds and ways of living of its members.
Another issue is what should
be done when people who should know better praise nondiversity and
noninclusiveness? Civil rights leader Rev. Jesse L. Jackson said, “I applaud
commissioner Adam Silver’s commitment to diversity and inclusion within the
NBA.” During the 2018-2019 season, more than 33% of NBA teams had head coaches
of color. The number of assistant head coaches of color was over 42%. The
number of black NBA players was 82%. In the face of these statistics, Oris
Stuart, the NBA’s chief diversity and inclusion officer said, “Diversity,
inclusion and equality are central to every aspect of our game and our
business.” I would like for Jesse Jackson and others who claim that there’s
racial diversity and inclusiveness in professional basketball to make their
case. The same question can be asked about professional football where 70% of
NFL players are black, and 9% of team head coaches are black. The thornier
question and challenge is what can be done to make professional basketball and
football look more like the American population?
Most of
the diversity and inclusiveness insanity has its roots in academia. An
example is a paper titled “Equilibrium Grade Inflation with Implications for
Female Interest in STEM Majors,” written by Naval Postgraduate School professor
Thomas Ahn, Duke University economics professor Peter Arcidiacono, Duke
University researcher Amy Hopson, and James R. Thomas of the Federal Trade
Commission. The authors argue that science, technology, engineering and
mathematics programs at colleges and universities lacking female enrollment can
be attributed largely to harsh grading policies in these fields. Their solution
to increase the number of women’s involvement in STEM is to standardize grading
curves, in order to grade less “harshly.” The insanity of this
approach is to not only weaken standards for women but to weaken standards
across the board. This is more evidence
that George Orwell was absolutely right when he said, “There are some ideas so
absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”
Walter
E. Williams is the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George
Mason University, and a nationally syndicated columnist. To find out more about
Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and
cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page.
Copyright © 2019 Creators.com
