Examining Mandatory Diversity and Affirmative Action | Racial Quotas & Reverse Discrimination

Image Source.

(Stillness in the Storm Editor) Mandatory diversity, also known as affirmative action, is founded on the premise that forced racial equality makes up for, or is a just response to, past racial injustice. The idea is, since African Americans were oppressed under Jim Crow and the separate but equal policy, today all areas of life must be rigidly diversified. But here’s the problem with this idea, race, sexual orientation, and gender are usually are not factors in determining if someone is capable of performing a task. An accountant’s ability to calculate isn’t dependent on their skin color. A singer’s vocal prowess has no bearing on their gender. A doctor’s ability to heal is not derived from their sexual orientation. But through mandatory diversity laws and policies, we have put a higher priority on image than substance. 

The following short video discusses the philosophy of mandatory diversity and how it is essentially a form of socially acceptable discrimination. But before we get to that, let’s discuss a few points. 

The concept of image blindness, as discussed in the below article is helpful here. 


Related When Tolerance Becomes Hate — Image Blindness and Cognitive Dissonance | Women’s March, Sharia Law vs Feminism, Soros and Linda Sarsour

Racism, bigotry and prejudice are related in that each is based on a presumption or rejection of reality—that a person’s overall attributes can be measured by an inconsequential thing, namely their: race, gender, creed, wealth status, and so on. 

For example, racism is the belief in the premise of racial superiority, that one race is better than another, in all respects, simply due to genetic stock. But in examining reality, this idea fails to hold up. Generally speaking, white people aren’t better at doing things than black people, Asian people, or visa versa. Instead, usually a person’s innate skill determines their performance ability.

In short, all prejudicial views are ideological philosophies, ideas, or a conclusion. As such, they can only be changed by the individual reexamining their beliefs—either by appealing to them with reason and logic, once rapport has been developed, or organically via experience in life. That is to say, we can’t force someone to abandon prejudicial beliefs. 

Ethically, the only way to change a person’s mind is to engage a discussion, if they choose to do so. We can’t force someone to accept a different conclusion, even if they one they use is wrong. Thus, the idea that we can force someone out of a bigoted stance by imposing an environment of mandatory equality is inherently disrespectful to that person. While we can’t police the minds of others we can prevent them from acting on their prejudice.

The very notion of forcing equality onto others is immoral as it seeks to sidestep or suppress their free will. But we can create an environment where that person can feel safe enough to consider a different point of view. 

As a matter of fact, there is a black man who has successfully done this with hundreds of KKK members, proving that no one can be forced to change their beliefs, but with kindness and compassion, they often do come around. 

Related Meet The Black Man Who Made Hundreds Of Racists Quit The KKK By Befriending Them

In reaction to the prejudices of the past, so-called progressive thinkers have accepted the idea that the appearance of equality (lack of prejudice) is the same as real equality. And that by forcing this onto society, it will engender in those with prejudicial views a more tolerant and progressive stance. But is this premise true? Does this even work? 

Given that prejudice is an idea or an aspect of consciousness, a perception dependent on beliefs, then changing the physical world probably won’t do much. Do we really think if a die hard racist walked into a room with a diverse range of races they would all of a sudden decide their views weren’t valid? It is certainly possible, but in examining history, the transition away from segregation during the late 70s and 80s didn’t make racism go away, it just made it socially taboo. 

We can’t solve a problem of consciousness by moving things around in the material world. Solutions in consciousness are required, like discussing the premise of prejudicial ideology in a kind, tolerant and compassionate way, just like the black man who befriended KKK members did. 

In effect, most people don’t really understand what racism really is (an ideology) and as such have confused racial homogeny with real equality. The social justice movement, given this, is largely focused on the appearance of equality, instead of tackling the real causal factors behind prejudicial perspectives. 

So what is real equality or the consciousness of it? I would say it is the ability to see people for who they really are instead of how they look or what you think they are—which is another way of saying a person without prejudice only focuses on and acts within the truth. 

That being said, if two people are applying for a job, and the criteria for selection is dependent on a person’s skill set, for instance, the ability to play an instrument, then would it make sense to ignore those skills in favor of their race, gender, or sexual orientation? Does a symphony, sports team, or medical wing operate better because there is more “diversity” or does the skill of each individual more of a factor?

If a man was turned down for a job because he was gay, we would call this prejudice. 

If a woman was suspected of a crime purely for being black, we would call this racism. 

But if someone is chosen for a job or position specifically because they are gay, black, or female, today, we call it progressive. We actually think this is a sign of fairness and more equality. 


Oh how blind we have become. 

In essence, mandatory diversity is a euphemism for “positive or reverse discrimination.” 

Instead of disqualifying someone because of their race (negative discrimination) we’re told that accepting a person for a task or job based on race is somehow a more equal and less prejudicial policy. 

But this is an inherent contradiction. Such policies literally pre-judge a person based on qualities that are ultimately unrelated to the position being applied for.

And what does it say about contemporary culture and society that it would so readily take up a prejudicial stance in response to the prejudice of the past? 

As individuals, I think we need to be more careful and discerning. We need to really understand the issues we’re passionate about, else the image or perception of reality we focus on might blind us to the truth that is actually unfolding before our eyes. Finally, we need to be willing to question the socially acceptable stances of society, especially those movements founded on dogmatic adherence to the doctrines of organization. 

Just because everyone else is doing it doesn’t mean it is right or even in harmony with the truth. The tenets of social justice movements in the contemporary age must be vetted and evaluated at a personal level, else we’ll be swept up by rhetoric, holding a flag of justice while pushing intolerance, prejudice, and racism. 

Related 5 Things You Should Know About Social Justice & Universities

_________________________
Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammar mistake? Do you think this article needs a correction or update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at [email protected]. Thank you for reading.