When Freedom D.I.E.s | How Diversity, Inclusion & Equity Destroy Individualism
Diversity, Inclusion, Equity (DIE) are the modern ethos that shapes the decisions of all organizations in the West. For decades, the discrimination narrative of women and minorities has persisted despite affirmative action. And in response to these narratives, governments, universities, and corporations have updated their hiring practices and admission policies to “level the playing field,” so to speak. No longer are individuals judged based on merit or talent, but rather on group identity and whether they fulfill the organization's criteria for fairness and equality. Indeed, times have changed, and now everyone must DIE so that others may live.
But the DIE ethos is a nonsensical policy. Not only do each of the terms contradict each other, but they also come at the expense of the individual. For example, how can one create a diverse workplace while also being inclusive? Inclusion, in theory, should be non-discriminatory, yet for a workplace to remain diverse, companies would have to discriminate to maintain their multi-ethnic equilibrium. In other words, an organization cannot be both diverse and inclusive because both policies contradict each other. Even if equity were added to solve the contradiction, a company would still need to define why choosing a less qualified candidate for a position is better than granting it to someone who earned it and is better qualified.
Why are these policies becoming more prevalent with each passing year? There are several factors: guilt for past discrimination, identity superseding individual merit, and a loss of civil discourse in favor of dogmatic groupthink. White guilt, in particular, is commonly associated with colonialism and slavery in America. Even after ending slavery, segregation continued under the guise of the separate but equal maxim. Of course, to be separate from a group implies that one is not equal to that group. Ironically, those who experience white guilt and placate minorities to receive forgiveness tend to produce the opposite effect. Rather than minorities forgiving them for past sins of their white oppressors, they instead double down on their vitriol and continue to vilify them, perpetuating the separate but equal doctrine.
Identitarianism is the new social policy that defines the individual. Who one is and who one identifies as is treated as one and the same regardless of whether it is true or not. Those who support the individual as identity concept do so to protect marginalized groups from bullying or ridicule, hence, why movements and organizations like LGBTQ+, Feminism, BLM, and transgender rights groups can operate with complete impunity. While no one should suffer verbal or physical abuse for their sex or skin color, it would also be equally as unjust to condone someone who was guilty of those same acts based on their sex or skin color. In other words, we should place judgment on the individual, not on the individual's identity.
Despite protests against the D.I.E. ethos, it continues to shape our social institutions, most prominently in the western universities. Kimberly Johnson a professor of sociology at Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania gives several examples of D.I.E. Politics infiltrating student's classrooms. (Video timestamps: 4:02 - 7:01)
The value of Individualism is depreciating in the marketplace of ideas, and when it dies—freedom will die alongside it. When we protect the rights of groups over the rights of individuals, tribalism ensues, bureaucratizing social institutions and affecting laws in favor of Identitarianism. Indeed, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Civil discussion loses its power when heated exchange burns reasonable arguments to ash. Accusations of bigotry and discrimination make peaceful resolution impossible to achieve, and perhaps that is the point. Blood must be paid with blood, and those willing to shed it see their cause as just.
Identity groups must find an enemy to rally against. For feminists, it’s the patriarchy; for BLM, it’s white supremacists; for LGBTQ+ and transgender activists, it’s heteronormative, cisgender families. However, these terms, which are nebulous by nature, can loosely define anyone as their opposition despite immutable characteristics. Under this paradigm, a white, heterosexual male can be considered the worst evil, an absurd albeit growing trend in the West. Of course, the white, heterosexual male is the most prominent demographic in the Western democracies, and it is not by coincidence. Subverting the principles of individualism requires undermining the ones who support it. Thus the ignorant majority becomes the target of the tyrannical minority.
In George Orwell’s book, 1984, he introduces the concept of Doublethink, the notion of holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. One of the maxims in the novel epitomizes this cognitive dissonance:
“War Is Peace.
Freedom Is Slavery.
Ignorance Is Strength.” - George Orwell ¹
These principles, referenced throughout the novel, are meant to create a sense of social cohesion and unwavering trust with the ruling authority known as The Party. Perhaps the West is in the midst of an identity crisis and is searching for its own principles, using doublethink as a coping mechanism. In other words, D.I.E. is meant to be contradictory by refining old values to suit our new ones. In this case, Diversity is Representation. Inclusion is Recognition. Equity is Equality.
These are strange times we are living in—a turning point in history. It seems that Identitarianism is being mistaken for Individualism. And those who ascribe to this false doctrine have little to no interest in preserving freedom of expression but rather the expression of freedom—to look as though they are champions of liberty. Indeed, the expression of freedom is an empty virtue. Dyeing one’s hair, putting a bumper sticker on one’s car, or wearing a graphic tee to display one’s activism is not individualistic nor is it revolutionary. Real individualism and liberty requires one to protect the rights of others you may disagree with regardless if they are hurtful. D.I.E. does nothing except promote ideologies which are antithetical to the individual. The only way to change course is to understand the distinction between freedom of expression and the expression of freedom. If not, it won’t be long until we lose both.
