DEI 2.0 should reflect right and wrong, not pit right against left
When was the last time that pundits agreed on anything? The debate about DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) has them making similar points. America may be divided by left and right, but Americans are quite clear on what is right and wrong.
Rev. Al Sharpton, a civil rights and social justice activist, was asked on MSNBC in December what would happen if a group if 1,000 white students at Harvard University called for genocide of all Black Americans? His answer, “I would let you know what time my buses were leaving for the march on Harvard.”
He noted that if the word “Black” were substituted for “Jews” … “This is not hard. This is not difficult ... because you can't have it both ways.”
When Ivy League presidents were asked similar questions during a congressional hearing in December, the presidents claimed that calling for genocide of Jews would violate their codes of conduct depending on the context.
Americans on the right and left watched in shock. We all know that there is no context in which advocating for the genocide of any minority is right. It is unequivocally wrong.
DEI in its current form has lost its way in America
Why then didn't DEI officials at the U.S. institutions stand up and say so? Because the DEI world now chooses those who are worthy of protection and those who are not.
Too many DEI officials advocate a false narrative that all of us falls in to one of two categories — oppressor or oppressed (protected). But Americans understand that no matter how some might want to re-write history, every minority must be protected against calls for genocide, no matter what they look like.
The Free Press editor Bari Weiss said, “DEI is undermining America, and that for which it stands — including the principles that have made it a place of unparalleled opportunity, safety, and freedom for so many.”
Conservative writer Heather MacDonald wrote, “The problem is an entire antiWestern ethos that now dominates most of the humanities and social sciences …”
The DEI focus on the false narrative that Americans are either oppressors or oppressed goes against what Americans have learned since Kindergarten.
America is the land of opportunity, where all have a chance at success. Do we need to keep working to alleviate racism, homophobia, antisemitism? Yes we do. As Al Sharpton said, “You have to stand up for everyone.” Standing up for everyone is as American as apple pie. Yet DEI in its current form has lost its way, only standing up for chosen people while condemning others.
DEI should not pick winners and losers
In the Boston Globe, Harvard professor Steven Pinker suggested a solution, “Universities should stanch the flood of DEI officials, expose their policies … and repeal the ones which cannot be publicly justified.”
USA Today special contributor Tiffany Brandreth, architect of the DEI Intelligence Mode, correctly states, “Instead, we need to focus on presenting more whole and complete concepts in DEI purely driven by integrity of the concept itself.”
DEI proponents must not engage in rewriting history, they must not decide who is deserving of protections and who is not, and they certainly must not divide the world into categories of good and bad.
DEI 2.0 must be based on the moral ideals of inclusivity and diversity. DEI 2.0 must also be mindful neither to choose winners nor losers, rather support all historically marginalized peoples. When left and right agree, it's a sign that DEI must return to a focus on traditional American values of right and wrong.
George Lindemann is a father, philanthropist, farmer, owner of Coal Creek Farm in Tennessee and other small businesses in Nashville and Chattanooga. He’s a successful businessman, developer, and award-winning conservationist. Most importantly, George believes that to have a better world, we need to be better to each other.