Let me start by saying that I stole the title of this post from Kevin Williamson. Kevin is a writer for The Dispatch, and once a week I — along with about a million other people — get an email from him called Wanderland. And one of the “features” of Wanderland is a section called Words About Words. Kevin is very, very smart about words (and a whole bunch of other stuff). So, now the title has been duly attributed.
Lately I’ve been thinking a bit about words and labels. I’m not sure, but I think it started several months ago when I read this article by Jonah Goldberg (another Dispatch writer), but it was brought to my front-burner again yesterday when a close friend quipped about this web site that “Dei” might stand for “Diversity Equity and Inclusion.” (It doesn’t; it’s the Latin word for “God”.) He didn’t mean anything by it of course — he was just busting my chops. But it did get me thinking . . . again . . . about how we attribute negative associations to words that are not necessarily objectively negative.
Let’s take “diversity” for example. I understand how that word raises the shackles of the right-hand side of the socio-political spectrum, because the left-hand side of that spectrum has used it as a hammer to force our society, most notably business and academia, to not only accept but require all sorts of ridiculous things, such as race and gender quotas, acceptance of sexual preference, and buy in to all sorts of various and ridiculous gender convolutions, to name just a few. But really, diversity in the proper context is not only wise, but biblical. Proverbs 11:14 says, in part, “[I]n abundance of counselors there is safety” (or “victory”, depending on your translation). The point is that multiple people looking at the same problem with different perspectives will often come up with a wise and successful solution. It would be counter-productive if all of those people approached the problem with the exact same perspectives, viewpoints, and opinions. That’s not wisdom, it’s indoctrination. Those people aren’t counselors, they’re zombies. It is the diversity of viewpoint that makes the proverb sensical. (Yes, sensical is a word.)
Likewise, I wouldn’t go to a therapist (if I went to see a therapist) to see everything my way and agree with me regarding my thoughts and feelings about all my problems. I would go so that the therapist can look at my issues through a different lens, and perhaps help me see and understand things I’m blind to, and offer suggestions as to how to find solutions I would never have thought of. My theoretical therapist is a different person, with a different educational background and a different vocational experience that gives him a drastically different perspective on my problems. That’s diversity. And diversity comes from different backgrounds, different cultures, different experiences, different life stories.
That’s actually a big part of the problem with our civic discourse these days: there is no diversity. People who love Trump and hate Biden will only watch Newsmax (or, maybe, Fox News, but not so much any more). People who love Biden and hate Trump will only watch CNN or MSNBC. Everyone wants to live in an echo chamber, which is the functional opposite of diversity. Here’s an experiment: say something “liberal” in the comments of a friend’s Facebook feed whom you know to be a staunch conservative, and see how fast that friend “unfriends” you — or at least “unfollows” you on his feed. Why? Because we have become intolerant of any viewpoint other than the one we have bought into. We don’t want to hear other points of view. We have become intolerant of diversity. And what’s funny (not in a “ha ha” way, but in a “man, that’s really weird” way) is that those who claim to champion diversity are the worst offenders of diversity. If you don’t buy in to their definition of diversity — in other words, if you don’t conform by embracing racial quotas, multiple genders, critical race theory, etc. — you are castigated and vilified as not being diverse. Again, because you did not conform.
Likewise, equity in its basic original meaning is good. Equity is, in short, fairness. It’s common sense right and wrong. If you wrongfully break my arm, it is equitable that you should pay for my medical bills, and maybe pay for the time I lose from work for my arm to heal. Equity is, in fact, exactly what many conservatives think they’re fighting for when they argue against disparate racial preferences, unfair business regulations, activist lawsuits, progressive tax rates. Fairness means that everyone is treated equally.
Again, I understand the knee-jerk opposition to “equity”; the progressive version of equity means that everyone is treated equally as long as you’re not white, straight, or conservative (or a member of any other disfavored demographic or constituency). But that’s not really equity — it’s just inequity in the opposite direction. True equity would treat everyone fairly regardless of color, gender, sexual preference, or ideology. Note that equity is not equality — the reality of life means that everyone is not and never will be equal. I will never be as smart as Albert Einstein, or as good looking as Brad Pitt (I’m told, but I dispute that), or as rich as Jeff Bezos. I will never achieve equality with those gentlemen in those areas — we will never be equals. But equity means I will be treated just as fairly legally and civilly as they would be. Most conservatives would agree with that.
The Bible talks a great deal about equity. In fact, most of the Old Testament prophets addressed the lack of equity (fairness and justice) in ancient Israel and Judah. From Isaiah to Malachai, the prophets pointed out that the people were oppressing the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner, and that God would judge them accordingly. He did, He still does, and in the end He will. With the singular exception of original sin, God never states that everyone is equal. But He takes equity very, very seriously.
Likewise, inclusion is not always bad. How many of us growing up heard our parents say “let your little brother (or sister) play too!” That’s inclusion. It’s letting other people participate. It’s the opposite of exclusive.
Sidebar: That’s one of the problems I always had with the Greek system at many colleges and universities: they were exclusive. They chose who could be a part of the fraternity/sorority, but would never admit to being exclusive. I’m not saying being exclusive is always bad, or that it was bad for those organizations to be exclusive. The Greeks certainly had the right to decide who would be admitted into their little assembly. But they would never admit to being exclusive. Full disclosure: I never tried to join a fraternity. I was a proud GDI. But my wife is a Katydid (KD). We’ve had many discussions about this.
Exclusivity is entirely appropriate in many contexts. Whereas I want my church to be inclusive with respect to who can attend services (we welcome men and women, black and white and Hispanic and Asian, heterosexual and homosexual and trans-sexual, etc.), I absolutely want it to be exclusive with respect to who conducts those services (only licensed ministers ordained in my denomination and committed to our doctrine).
Jesus was the ultimate inclusive guy. His little band of disciples was composed of Jews and Greeks, fishermen, tax collectors, educated and uneducated, rich and poor, pacifists and militarists. He included everyone. In fact, he never excluded anyone — He let everyone play! (Most people excluded themselves)!
While we’re at it, let’s look at the word “woke” (mostly because I had another close friend call me woke once. I’m beginning to identify a disturbing pattern among my close friends . . . ). To quote Jonah Goldberg, “For the original adopters of the term, being woke meant being ‘aware of racial or social injustice.’” If that’s the case, then yeah, I’d say my friend had it right: I’m woke! In fact, I’d say if you’re not aware of racial or social injustice, you’re either unconscious or sand-poundingly ignorant, because racial and social injustice has existed since Cain killed Abel, and will exist until the human race no longer walks this earth — at least in its current form. Don’t get me wrong: I’m convinced that racial injustice as a governmental and institutional characteristic has largely disappeared from the United States of America. We have come a long, long way since 1860, and even from 1960. But the effects of racism still lingers systemically, and probably always will. Much of that we probably can’t fix — no amount of legislation can prevent personal prejudice and racial hostility. We can’t outlaw a depraved heart. But again, we’ve come a long way. Maybe about as far as we can. Not to say we can’t continue to try.
But that’s not what most conservatives mean by “woke.” What they usually mean is that a “woke” person has drunk the Kool-Aid for transgenderism, trans-sexualism, abortion, racial preferences, ad nauseum. In other words, it has become shorthand for progressivism. With respect to that definition, I’m about as woke as Genkhis Khan.
So, sure, by those terms, I’m absolutely willing to embrace diversity, equity, and inclusion. I’d even describe myself as woke.
I think I’m in pretty good Company.
You are definitely my favorite “woke” friend! 😉