Diversity scam is part of hypocrisy that comes with being a human

By David McElroy · April 4, 2014

Diversity is one of the holy pillars of modern secular thought. It can’t be questioned or ignored. You will bow down to it and worship what it represents — just as long as the elites approve of the “diverse” people in question.

Human beings are hypocrites, but most don’t even recognize their hypocrisy. One of the key examples was on display this week as progressive left advocates of diversity proved how much they love diversity by hounding a man out of a job because he had dared to make a political contribution they disagreed with.

Brendan Eich invented the JavaScript scripting language, which is essential to the operation of the modern web. You wouldn’t be reading this page or pretty much any of the websites you read in the same way without his work. Eich was recently hired as CEO for the open source Mozilla browser project, and he seems like a perfect fit.

But as soon as he was hired, the advocates of diversity started whining, first as a low rumble and then louder and louder. Nobody alleged that Eich wasn’t qualified for the job. Nobody alleged that Eich had mistreated anyone. Eich’s only sin — in the eyes of the progressive left people who screamed — is having donated $1,000 six years ago to the political campaign which sought to pass Proposition 8 in California, the measure seeking to define marriage as something only between a man and a woman.

This isn’t a popular opinion today, especially among those who consider themselves the political and technological elite. In fact, it’s pretty much on par with the allegation decades ago that someone might have been a member of the Communist Party. It’s enough to make someone a leper in the eyes of people who otherwise preach diversity.

On Thursday, Eich was fired from his new job. We’re told that he resigned, but anybody with a brain knows he was forced out. He was purged for having a political belief that the elites don’t find acceptable.

It’s easy to attack those on the progressive left on this issue, especially because they’re the ones who have the biggest blind spot about this and yell the most self-righteously about diversity. But I think it’s a common human failing that goes beyond one partisan group.

Here’s the way it works. When you’re part of a group with a minority position, you make the case that your position deserves to be represented in discourse. It’s not fair, you say, for the popular position to be the only one heard. So you cry out for representation of your minority position. But as opinions shift and your opinion becomes the popular one, you suddenly lose your dedication to other people having the right to be heard. In fact, they’re nothing but bigots and losers who deserve to be silenced. And you use the power of your group’s new-found strength in numbers to punish those who disagree with you.

I’ve seen this in church power struggles. I’ve seen it in political groups. I’ve seen it in legislative bodies. It’s part of the hypocrisy that comes with being human. But most groups aren’t arrogantly hypocritical enough to make “diversity” among their key values — while being perfectly happy to purge dissenters from jobs — which is what the progressive left has done.

Progressives don’t really believe in diversity. They believe that others have the responsibility to agree with their moral dictates. They believe that it’s reasonable to use pressure to get rid of people who disagree with them or might not sing loudly enough from the Progressive Hymnal.

The drive today to silence those who have disagreed with some elements of the progressive agenda in the past is no different than the drive in the past to root out people who might have had communist sympathies. These folks are spiritual descendents of Joe McCarthy, but they’re too blind to see it.

At one time, being gay was enough to prevent you from being employable. Even though people should have the right to hire or fire people for whatever reasons they please, I find it morally reprehensible that someone would be passed over for being gay or black or female or whatever.

I find it just as reprehensible that a highly qualified man can be forced out of a job simply because of a political opinion. What’s been done to Eich is wrong, but the smugly self-satisfied people who engineered it can’t see their own hypocrisy.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts