By DONALD DeMARCO
A friend and I were enjoying a recreational break by shooting baskets. The fact that we were not keeping score allowed us to engage in a friendly conversation. My friend decided to pick my allegedly philosophical brain and asked me a question that he had trouble answering. He explained that a “diversity expert” had lectured him and all his co-workers that they must all embrace diversity. My friend was uncomfortable about this, but could not put his finger on exactly why he felt this way.
This sweet-sounding word to our culturally conditioned ears, unfortunately, has become an axiom, and therefore something that cannot be questioned.
Let us question it, nonetheless. I tossed up another shot while it occurred to me that the interchange of ideas might be my favorite sport. Knowing that my friend trusted me offered hope that my response would be helpful. When we clarify our feelings we are able to live with them more comfortably and are better equipped to share them with others. How does one begin to deal with an issue — such as diversity — that has been sufficiently complex and controversial to baffle some of American history’s most eloquent debaters?
What I write below, I am obliged to say, is not exactly a summary of what I said to my friend, but an extension.
The first thing to understand is that diversity is not a moral principle. It merely describes an array of things that happen to be different. This array may be composed of compatible or incompatible elements. Embracing diversity is not necessarily any better than embracing homogeneity. “Diversity” is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is ironic that in today’s world we shun complementarity and champion diversity.
Fine art has been traditionally defined as “diversity within unity.” This is a good and helpful definition. Without unity, diversity is chaos, like pearls that have been released from their string. On the other hand, unity without diversity is inert, lifeless, uninteresting. Art imitates life in the sense that we are constantly searching for an overarching purpose that gives meaning to the various episode of our existence. If diversity is to have any moral significance, it must be wed to unity. To put it simply, the notion of diversity all by itself is incomplete. Diversity in itself is ambiguous and can have opposite interpretations.
Sen. John C. Calhoun of South Carolina (1782-1850) believed strongly in diversity, but what he meant by this was the acceptance of slavery and free men as equally constitutive elements. He demanded that the South be recognized for its unique differences, especially its “inequality of condition” that accepted slavery as a fact of life. He rejected the principle expressed in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equally, stating that it was “contrary to human observation.”
Calhoun was hardly alone in acceptance of slavery within the umbrella of diversity. Stephen Douglas, in his debates with Lincoln, denied that a “house divided” cannot stand. He accused Lincoln of being irresponsible for believing that America cannot endure as half-slave and half-free. In rejecting any synthesizing principle, such as the equality of all human beings, he stated that “our government was formed on the principle of diversity…and not that of uniformity.”
He rejected the notion that different people could be held to a single standard of truth or morality, commenting: “We must take them as we find them, leaving the people free to do as they please, to have slavery or not, as they choose.” Douglas was also a staunch advocate of being “pro-choice.”
Lincoln, however, saw the Declaration of Independence as an “immortal emblem,” one that could endure unchanged throughout time. His Gettysburg Address was a rededication to the proposition that “all men are created equal” and the principle of “liberty for all.” Lincoln understood that the diverse groups that make up America could be united on a philosophical basis rather than one that was founded on something that was political and, therefore, contingent. Lincoln understood that diversity alone is an incomplete concept. America was founded on the principle that diversity must be organized within unity.
At the present moment, the debate continues. Political correctness, however, has tilted the issue in the direction of diversity alone. Very recently (November, 2016), 60 students and an activist with a bullhorn at Providence College demanded the firing of a prominent faculty member for nothing more than his criticism of the diversity ideology.
The victim in this case is Dr. Anthony Esolen, an orthodox Catholic and author of 16 books and another due for publication next year entitled, Out of the Ashes: Rebuilding American Culture. Among his many other accomplishments is his translation of Dante’s Divine Comedy into English.
It would be an understatement of considerable magnitude to say that political correctness is not a suitable substitute for philosophical thinking, or that the whole is greater than the part. In his fine book, On Hallowed Ground (Yale University Press: 2000), the distinguished historian John Patrick Diggins makes the following comment:
“Never before in American history has there been such confusion about the meaning of America and the identity of the American people. Never before have Americans been so deprived of the backward glance of historical understanding unsullied by the idiocy of political correctness.”
Diversity is an appealing word because it conjures up notions of universal brotherhood and world peace. But it appeals to dreamers who may, in fact, be intolerant toward those who prefer a more complete proposition. Diversity, lest it disintegrate into chaos and confusion, must be understood within the context of an agreeable unity. This is the vision to which Lincoln was dedicated. It is a vision of which we are now losing sight.
+ + +
(Dr. Donald DeMarco is a senior fellow of Human Life International. He is professor emeritus at St. Jerome’s University in Waterloo, Ontario, an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College in Cromwell, Conn., and a regular columnist for St. Austin Review. His recent works, How to Remain Sane in a World That Is Going Mad; Poetry That Enters the Mind and Warms the Heart; How to Flourish in a Fallen World, and In Praise of Life are available through Amazon.com. His most recent book is Footprints on the Sands of Time: Personal Reflections on Life and Death.)
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress