“Our diversity is what makes us stronger.”
This statement was made by a member of the Minneapolis City Council, warning against anti-immigrant backlash in the wake of a terrorist attack that injured 10 people at a St. Cloud, MN shopping mall. The 20 year old Somali attacker (brought to the U.S. as a young child) reportedly shouted “Allah” while stabbing his victims.
Does diversity make us stronger? Not in St. Cloud.
There is little contemporary or historical evidence that diversity is an unqualified good. In fact, history has not been kind to countries that have tried (or been forced) to accommodate significantly divergent cultures, ethnicities, religions, and/or languages within their borders (see the former Yugoslavia).
Some may argue that America’s heretofore successful “melting pot” assimilation model is an exception. However, the left’s relentless assault on the idea of American exceptionalism — coupled with its equally forceful advocacy of multiculturalism – is moving the country in the opposite direction.
During the 1990’s, calls for more racial and gender diversity were mainly aimed at the business sector. Corporate human resources managers attending professional meetings during this period sat through countless presentations on “managing diversity,” “valuing diversity,” “promoting diversity,” etc.
Since the 1990’s, the massive influx of third world immigrants has been accompanied by liberal politicians’ praise for their positive contributions to American life and culture; “diversity is our strength” and “celebrate diversity” became their favored slogans.
Despite the fact that Minnesota has the dubious distinction of being America’s primary ISIS recruitment hub, its liberal politicians rarely (if ever) acknowledge the Somali community’s serious assimilation problem. Instead, they make this problem a virtue by congratulating immigrant communities for their “valuable contribution” to the state’s diversity.*
*Minneapolis’s mayor recently announced a “wear the hijab day” for female city workers
Diversity: Love it or Leave
Largely due to liberals’ endless encomiums to its benefits, “diversity” has come to be popularly accepted as an unqualified good (and therefore a salutary end in itself). This message is continually reinforced in the movies, on TV, and in print advertising.
The acceptance of diversity’s benefits has advanced to the point that anyone who publicly questions them (for example, criticizing the country’s movement towards bilingualism) runs the risk of being labeled a “xenophobe” or “racist.”
Indeed, Minnesota’s governor publicly announced that anyone who objects to the state’s rapidly increasing cultural and ethnic diversity should pack up and leave.
For the left, the popular acceptance of diversity is essential to two of its transformative goals:
• Replacing the traditional “melting pot” assimilation model with a new multicultural model; and
• Moving from the traditional ideal of equality of opportunity to a new ideal based on equality of outcome.
The left’s influence over the country’s major institutions is reflected in its successful transmission of a revisionist, anti-patriotic narrative to generations of Americans.
According this narrative, the idea of American exceptionalism was illegitimate from the start because of slavery and the country’s long history of discrimination against minorities. The fact that America still practices this discrimination gives it no standing to require assimilation or belief in its core values by immigrant and other minority groups.
In light of the above (the left contends), multiculturalism should replace assimilation. “Our diversity makes us stronger” is therefore not merely a slogan; it is a validation and endorsement of the multicultural model.
Because it encourages immigrant communities to form de facto colonies that preserve the languages, traditions, and values of their home countries, the multicultural model’s promotion of diversity also supports their demands for cultural accommodation. (For example, foreign language driving tests, multilingual election ballots, halal school lunches, etc.)
Equality of Outcome
A conceptual shift towards equality of outcome is driven by the left, based on its conviction that racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination are still so prevalent that it is the government’s responsibility to ensure equal economic and social outcomes for disadvantaged groups.
In furtherance of this objective, America is becoming a quota-based society. Legally mandated racial and gender-based quotas already apply for government and private sector employment, housing, and education.
Notwithstanding their mandated imposition, quota systems still meet significant popular resistance as a perceived violation of traditional American values, such as individualism, fair play, and equal treatment.
Promoting diversity is the left’s solution to overcoming this resistance. After all, if everyone can be convinced that “diversity makes us stronger,” then quotas can be justified as necessary tools for advancing it.*
*The Supreme Court recently ruled that the University of Texas can continue to discriminate against white and Asian applicants to preserve “student body diversity.”
An Existential Threat
When it comes to promoting diversity and multiculturalism, Europe had a decades-long head start over America. As a result, many of Europe’s immigrant communities have been allowed (and sometimes encouraged) to reject assimilation, congregating instead in insular enclaves that resemble colonial outposts.
The failure of France, Germany, and other Western European countries to successfully integrate their large Muslim populations reveals multiculturalism’s lethal fault line. No amount of diversity cheerleading by its political and social elites can paper over Europe’s failed effort to peacefully coexist with its alienated Muslim communities.
Even as its elites continue to preach “tolerance,” “inclusiveness,” and the benefits of diversity, Europe is currently afflicted by a wave of terrorism perpetrated by home grown, radicalized Muslims. This problem is exacerbated by the massive influx of Syrian refugees, which is raising violent crime and sexual assaults to unprecedented levels.
As the victims of attacks by radicalized Muslims in Orlando, San Bernardino, Fort Hood,* Chattanooga, and Boston can attest, America is not immune to home-grown Islamic terrorism. Other minority communities are also showing signs of increasing insularity and alienation (reflected, for example, in the mainstreaming of Black Lives Matter, La Raza, and the Nation of Islam).
At the same time, liberal politicians and their allies in myriad progressive organizations continue to push for more diversity: open borders, more accommodation of cultural and language differences in the schools, more legal immigration, illegal immigrant amnesty, and the prohibition of “Islamophobic” terrorist profiling.
Hillary Clinton’s plan to import an additional 100,000 Syrian refugees will also add to our diversity (opinions differ on whether this should be “celebrated”).
*After the massacre by a radicalized Muslim soldier, a general stated that his main concern was its potential harm to the Army’s diversity program.
A Simple Question
The only way to fight back against the incessant barrage of “diversity is our strength” propaganda spouted by liberal politicians, immigrant rights organizations, and other “social justice” groups is to demand the answer to one simple question:
Why is more diversity good for America?
• Why will [more low income housing] [building a mosque] [resettling refugees] in my town improve its quality of life?
• Why will increasing its cultural and ethnic diversity make America stronger and more secure?
• Why is it good for politicians to give speeches in foreign languages?
• Why will America will be better off when whites become a minority?
Diversity cheerleaders are likely to respond to these and similar questions with bemused silence. That’s because the real purpose behind their “celebrate diversity” blather is to transform the country through progressive social engineering.
Author’s note: This essay focuses on a few key issues related to diversity and multiculturalism. Word length and space limitations preclude a more comprehensive discussion.Tags: Islam