Diversity Is Not Our Strength
Diversity Is Not Our Strength
By: Jason L. Van Dyke, Esq.
The social justice warrior has a voracious appetite for conformity. This is why it was absolutely no surprise to me to read, as I was enjoying my morning coffee, that Google fired an employee for posting a “ten page manifesto” against diversity. I was similarly unsurprised to learn that a statement about the manifesto was released by Danielle Brown, who is Google’s Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance. I didn’t waste my time reading her statement, but wasn’t shocked that a California-based company has a position called Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance: all of those UC-Berkeley graduates who wasted four years and five figures on gender studies degrees have to work somewhere other than Starbucks I suppose. Naturally, the now unemployed software engineer was absolutely, positively, 100% correct in his opinion on the uselessness of diversity for its own sake.
We have all heard the term “a means to an end”. While some attribute the phrase to Immanuel Kant, the question of whether something is a properly pursued as a “means to an end” or an “end in and of itself” dates back to the philosophy ofancient Greece. For example, Plato’s Republic devotes much discussion to the creation of an ideal city ruled by philosopher kings. However, another important subject of the dialogue is the definition of justice, and whether justice is a good that ought to be pursued for its own sake. The term social justice warrior is a bit of a misnomer because the folks who fight for social justice aren’t really interested in justice at all: they are most interested in diversity. Of course, they are unable to explain in rational terms why diversity is objectively positive end which ought to be pursued for its own sake, which is why any argument with a them quickly devolves into some sort of idiotic denigration of the straight white man and ends with the social justice warrior calling his opponent a fascist.
I grew up in the suburban Detroit city of Troy, Michigan, which many considered to be among the wealthier parts of metropolitan Detroit area, although not nearly as wealthy as places like Grosse Point or Bloomfield. This was a community where diversity was naturally occurring and nobody really made a big deal about it. It is certainly true that the community was majority white, but throughout grade school I attended classes with students from a number of different ethnic backgrounds. Diversity was never something that anyone ever really made a big deal of and nobody really talked about it. This changed the minute I arrived at college.
The first thing that your typical semi-red-pilled American man notices upon his arrival to college is the degree of attention paid to things like race, gender, and sexual orientation. There were entire staff positions and offices devoted to these thing. Student organizations catering to specific minority groups havepermanent voting seats in student government (I am still waiting for someone to start a Kekistani Student Union at one of these schools and using it to demand a place in student government). In the late 90s, when I was a student who began questioning these massive political re-education programs, a professor told me something that I will never forget: “The presence of minority groups on a college campus enriches the campus in a way that a straight white male student never can.” When I heard those words, I immediately knew what those who stood for diversity really wanted: fewer straight white men.
The notion that racial minorities, women, and homosexuals are capable by their very presence of somehow “enriching” a profession, a culture, a club, or a geographical area is, of course, patently absurd. It suggests that minorities have some sort of weird beacon glowing inside of them that exudes prosperity and harmony wherever they happen to be except Chicago. Most of us recognize these notions as the bullshit, while simultaneously acknowledging that there are some instances where diversity harnesses in a positive manner and as a means to an end. Diversity would, for instance, be particularly useful among the employees of a business who regularly interact with a broad base of customers. This isn’t rocket science: many people are simply more comfortable buying something from a person who shares their values or who, at the very least, looks like them. Similarly, there are other businesses – or departments within a business – where diversity has no value and merit rules the day (at least, in an ideal world). Diversity has little value in the business world except as a means to the very legitimate end of increased corporate profits, and the notion of diversityis only valuable as a means through which to increase corporate profits is even more hateful to social justice warriors as corporate profits themselves.
In the case, of Google, they were probably well within their legal rights to fire an employee who refused to drink the company Kool Aid on diversity. The man who was fired for writing this “manifesto” will probably be better off in the long run to. His talents were obviously being wasted at a company that cared more about the pursuit of diversity for its own sake than it did in producing great software. He is likely to find a job with another company in no time, his manifesto will receive ten times the attention that it otherwise would have, and Google will rightfully be lampooned as a company run by thought policing social justice warriors. Perhaps the reason so many millennials want to go work for Google is because it’s the closest thing to a safe space they can find outside the bubble of higher education.
Sooner or later, companies like Google will learn that diversity doesn’t sell software.When pursued for its own end, it doesn’t sell or accomplish anything worthwhile. It does foster resentment among those who are forced to work alongside incompetent boobs that were hired only to fulfill some sort of self-imposed quota. It certainly decreases company morale among those who are sick of being told that their opinion doesn’t matter because they aren’t a minority group. In fact, the pursuit of diversity for its own sake hurts members of these minority groups by contributing to the bigotry of low expectations. The only time diversity has ever accomplished anything positive is as a means to an end rather than an end in and of itself. It is not our strength; it is one of many contributing factors to our strength because there is nobody who – by virtue of their race, gender, or sexual orientation - is capable of enriching a university, a corporation, or anything else simply by showing up and being there. Uhuru!
Jason L. Van Dyke is licensed to practice law in Texas, Colorado, Georgia and Washington D.C. He has been practicing in the areas of criminal defense, commercial debt collection, and real estate law for ten years. He is Sergeant-at-Arms of the Dallas/Fort Worth Chapter of The Proud Boys and lives in Crossroads, Texas. The views expressed in this article are general in nature and should not be used or construed as legal advice for any specific situation