Archives

July 2009: Is diversity a good thing or something we should limit?

Is diversity a good thing or something we should limit? Should the federal government encourage multiculturalism as a means to promote diversity? Should the federal government force integration and assimilation through cultural standards such as English only laws? Should diversity be a consideration within federal institutions such as the presidential administration or the Supreme Court?

Conservative Response

Let’s be clear about what thinking conservatives do not want: discrimination against people who are in this country as legal residents; any and all claims that one race/ethnic group/culture is better than others; and apocalyptic, alarmist nonsense about the end of our way of life.

Ours is a nation based on ideas, and we are concerned, legitimately so, about these ideas being debased, replaced, or undervalued by people coming from other traditions.

The key cultural ingredient — one worth defending — is the English language. History shows that cultural fragmentation — "Balkanization" — leads to disruption and disunity. Assimilation is essential and begins with a common language. English should be the mandated language of government and business in the U.S.

With the recent Supreme Court decision to reverse the lower court ruling in the discrimination case for the New Haven firefighters, Ricci v. DeStefano, we see that being Hispanic or being a woman does not ensure the wisest decisions. The decision of Judge Sonia Sotomayer, the first Hispanic to be nominated to the Supreme Court, was overturned because it’s unjust to discriminate against anyone. Diversity should never be a consideration in hiring and promotion practices especially for our most important jobs from firefighter to Supreme Court Justice.

— Editor

Liberal Response

This is most definitely a key part of the liberal-conservative debate.

We will grant that most conservatives, least-wise the moderate ones, and considering that we are decades beyond the Civil Rights movement, are not bigots. So why would conservatives oppose diversity? We don’t think they do, as people. Many conservatives are comfortable with diverse environments. But conservatives also believe that the government should be colorblind, in that it should show no favoritism to ANY group. In one regard — that everyone should be equal under the law, they have a point. But liberals see that innocuous attitude as not so innocuous. If there is a distinct group in power, with most of the nation’s wealth and privilege, "colorblind" is not neutral; it keeps the in-power group in power. So the liberal response is to support programs that open doors of power to other groups, as long as they do not close doors to anyone. Reasonable affirmative action programs do just that.

Part of a diverse society is a diversity of language. But it is not the English language that is the glue to our nation; it is our institutions. Democracy, rule of law, freedom, human rights, free markets — these are language-neutral. We support and encourage immigrants to learn English — it is advantageous to do so, but we oppose any English-only law. The government, at all levels, should promote and/or provide reasonable assistance to governmental, medical and legal services for everyone.

Diversity also means cultural diversity and differing experiences within American society. Here we enjoin the debate over the appointee for Supreme Court justice. Judge Sonia Sotomayor brings an until-now unrepresented point-of-view to the Court. Being a Hispanic woman doesn’t make her wiser; it brings a different experience — an experience shared with an ever increasing swath of American society. If confirmed, Judge Sonia Sotomayer would be the first Hispanic and only the third woman to be seated on the Supreme Court. Although impossible to represent every segment of American society, the Supreme Court should reflect our ever diverse society. It is important that we all, including Hispanics and women, see a stake in the American Judicial System.

— Editor

Alternative Response

There is nothing "wrong" with the traditions of other places. But with such an influx of legal and illegal immigrants, we are in danger of losing ours. With one quarter of all Californians’ first language being Spanish, there is less urgency for people to learn English. Our culture is Anglo, the language of that culture is English, and we need to require all business and government to be conducted in that great language, not twenty others.

We have a common law tradition; a Protestant work ethic; a free-market competitive attitude; an entrepreneurial spirit; and an American sense of optimism that is not necessarily shared. The number of people entering the country needs to be small enough so that those who come in have the opportunity to assimilate, so that the culture absorbs the immigrants, rather than the immigrants diminishing the culture.

Face it also that some cultures are in conflict with ours: cultures that devalue women (in Saudi Arabia and Somalia), that promote inequality (the caste system of India), that eschew the rule of law (Russia), and that limit expression and thought (China).

— Editor

Editor
7/5/09

A previously published text was submitted by a reader calling himself The Paleo Conservatist. The full text can be accessed by searching "Marxist University Archipelago" online. The part related to our topic may be summed up as follows:

• Public schools have sacrificed tradition to accommodate diversity.
• Traditional culture is what made America great. Diversity has diluted that culture.
• The ruin of American traditional culture can be blamed on the adoption of 'moral relativism' (the denial that some cultures are better than others) and the inculcation of the education system with Marxist ideas.