The Problems with (DEI) Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Although these three words might sound good, even mete, right and salutary, when we look at what each word means and what is intended by each, we will see that not all is of what is presented is even close to good. The following material will define each term with its literal definition, then define the term as it is redefined and used in our current cultural setting, and finally compare this information with God’s Word.

Diversity
 

The online Mirriam-Webster Dictionary defines diversity as “the condition of having or being composed of differing elements; the inclusion of people of different races cultures, etc. in a group or organization.” This online definition as well as the online definitions of equity and inclusion are very similar to those in older dictionaries, yet these words have different meanings for different people in our world today. The importance of diversity in our popular culture today is that all people, including all those with good and bad aspects of their lives, should be included and that those who refuse to include and be tolerant of any individual or group who espouses ethics and values deemed wrong, should be punished. In other words, those who espouse Biblical truths should be forced to accept (be tolerant) of those who live and act contrary to such truths.
 

The problem with diversity begins with the word which is the heart of the word diversity, and that is the word divide. When we begin equating non-equal things, such as morals, ethics and values and demanding that all people accept even those whose morals, ethics and values are outside their own, then instead of these differences uniting, they are indeed being divisive. One cannot unite people through division or diversity. Indeed, diversity divides and is divisive no matter what laws may be put forth to force such acceptance.
 

As for the word tolerance and the usage of being tolerant, the very word means to accept something that one does not like or is deemed unacceptable. In other words, one may not ask others to be tolerant of their good behavior, but one may ask for tolerance of behavior that is outside the accepted norm. This usage then begs the questions, “Should behavior outside the accepted norm be tolerated?” and “Should we make laws to force others to accept such behavior?” Here again we see the divisiveness of such activity.
 

Now certainly various cultures have various acceptable diverse-cultural norms, and there are many such diverse-cultural activities that are and should be celebrated. They can bring awareness and teach the history of that culture, but to impose those outside the ethically acceptable behavior on others is not the way to bring unity.
 

Very often when diverse groups come together, the whole works to assimilate the individual parts. In other words, for years America was known as a melting pot of cultures because all the various cultures came together and assimilated under the new American culture. They still celebrated their own culture in their own communities but are conformed to the American culture in the American world.

Equity
 

The online Mirriam-Webster Dictionary defines equity as “justice according to natural law or right; freedom from bias or favoritism.” The United States is based on the idea that we are all equal meaning we all have the same starting place. Certainly there are those in this country who disagree with that premise and believe some start higher or lower than others. To some degree that may be true. At the same time, is the position into which one is born due to their own doing or is it a result of those who have gone on before them? In other words, one may have been born into a rather affluent situation and another into a lesser environment. Is it because of something innate in them or something from outside of them that caused their situation? Neither individual is where they are because of themselves but because of those who have gone on before them. Certainly as you trace the history of people, all people at one time had the same status in the beginning. And yet this country does offer the opportunity for individuals to work and succeed according to their efforts.
 

Unlike equality which, online, is defined as, “the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities.” In other words, equality is the beginning point. As an American citizen we are born with equal status, rights, and opportunities under the law. Or in other words, we all have the same starting point. The difference being, what do we do from our starting point. Do we make the most of our opportunities? Do we work hard? Or do we simply expect the “world” owes us and whine and moan because we do not work for and thus to not have what others work for and have? Equality is the beginning place.
 

The problem with the desire for equity is that equity is what is called an outcome, that is, one is not guaranteed an equal beginning but an equal ending. Thus, it does not matter what effort one makes or that one make any effort at all, but each is guaranteed the same outcome. If you truly understand this desire, then you can understand that equity is socialism, and if you actually know that history of socialism, you know that it does not work. What works is reward-based work, that is, the more you work the more you are rewarded. The less you work the less you are rewarded. The incentive then is to work hard to make your life better. Equity, like socialism, means that all people get the same no matter what one contributes. Thus, there is no incentive to put in any more than anyone else, and instead of everyone striving to build bigger and better, one’s natural instinct would be to give as little as possible. The result of an equity-based socialist society would be that eventually everyone would have less and less. Whereas a reward, equality-based society gives incentive to those who desire to have more, to build bigger and better, and thus are rewarded for doing so. Therefore the result is everyone is lifted up and has more and more.

Inclusion
 

The online Mirriam-Webster Dictionary defines inclusion as “the act or practice of including students with disabilities with the general student population. Inclusion refers to a variety of integration approaches, but the goal is to blend special education students into the traditional classroom; sometimes used before a noun; an inclusion classroom/school; the act or practice of including and accommodating people who have historically been excluded (as because of their race, gender, sexuality, or ability).”
 

Right off one might believe that, at least according to this definition, this type of inclusion would be a really good thing. However, when this definition reaches its practical application, what we find is that those who espouse inclusion very much exclude those who do not espouse the same “type” of inclusion. This cry for inclusion turns into a cry of intolerance when anyone has a difference of acceptability. One example would include those who believe that one’s DNA gives evidence of one’s sex, often mistakenly referred to as gender or gender choice; thus, one who would exclude biological males from competing in biological female sports would be excluded from this inclusive group because they are intolerant. This scenario truly would then make this inclusive group an intolerant group itself.

Conclusion
 

Our popular culture would attempt to redefine DEI in a new and glorious light of something that is good and for which all should strive. However, when we actually look at what is underneath the sheep’s clothing as it is, we see all that glitters is not gold, and indeed not all of what is included in DEI is truly mete, right and good.
 

So, although DEI might sound good when this philosophy is broken down to its root intent, we can see that it is simply a way to discriminate and punish those who believe that all people are created equal, that is, all people are of one blood, not many races, but all are human beings. All people should have an equal chance at working hard to accomplish whatever they desire, and according for what they have worked, they are able to return in giving help to those who may not be able to accomplish all they desire. However, one hard worker should not be forced or enticed and have for what they have worked taken from them and given to anyone who has the ability but fails to make an effort. And those who have higher moral, ethical beliefs should not be punished nor forced to accept, be tolerant, and accepting of those outside their norms.