When the left touts the benefits of diversity, they’re really telling white people to get lost. The latest example is this wimpy white woman’s screed about her white neighbors’ reluctance to send their kids to a black school, which tells us all we need to know about the left’s conception of “diversity.” I just find it amusing that while leftists frequently accuse the right of using racist “dog whistles” and other coded language, they do the same thing when they employ the word “diversity.” This passage says it all:
When I am able to move past the anger, the frustration that people are talking about a school they know nothing about, I listen to what they say. Behind all the test score talk, the opportunity mumbo jumbo that people lead with, I feel like what is actually being said, and what is never being said is this: That school is too black. The people who are moving into my neighborhood want their children to have a diverse upbringing, but not too diverse. They still want a white school, just with other non-white children also participating.
What does she mean by “not too diverse?” Is she trying to claim that in order to enjoy a truly diverse education, her white neighbors must subject their kids to an overwhelmingly black classroom? How is a predominantly black environment in a nation where blacks are around 13% of the population “diverse?”
She also asserts that there’s something wrong with whites wanting to experience diversity on their own terms, and that they must become uncomfortable as a minority in order to enjoy diversity’s enriching qualities. Whites in today’s loony multicultural climate are never permitted to be the majority in any circumstance. I’m sure in her book, a school that’s 65% white, 13% black, 15% Latino, and 6% Asian – truly representative of the nation’s demographics – is less diverse than a school that’s 90% black.
However, even when whites have been relegated to minority status, their presence is still considered insufferable. Just check out this old editorial from my alma mater, UC Irvine, where the castrated cracker decries racism and even singles out UCI for its lack of diversity. This one sentence is most telling:
“We ought to note in the first place that, despite our large Asian-American population, we are not a “diverse” campus in the least.”
That’s right, even though Asians are over 50% of UCI’s student body – which makes them grossly overrepresented – and whites are a minority, the campus is still insufficiently diverse. One might logically conclude that, in order to increase diversity, one should increase the number of non-Asians relative to Asians. But no, in the author’s mind, UCI’s population is insufficiently diverse in spite of its enormous Asian population; it’s the presence of white people that’s hindering a multicultural utopia. His solution is for the already embattled white students to bear the costs of diversity and make room for Latinos and blacks.
So there you have it: diversity simply means fewer white people and more colored people. What amazes me is that so many credulous white people continue to be cozened by that word, unable to recognize that “diversity” is a celebration of their displacement. That’s why our task is to educate whites about the true nature of “diversity,” and thus enable them to instantly rebuke this leftist dog whistle.