Inclusive Mania

Words matter.

I applauded historians Daniel Pipes and Deirdre McCloskey earlier this year because they have attempted to bring new words into common usage that more accurately describe what is actually going on.  Pipes has been using the term “civilizationist” to describe the resistance of the former Eastern Bloc countries to massive Islamic immigration in lieu of “nationalist,” which has taken on the taint of fascism since WWII.  McCloskey has been advocating the use of the term “innovism” rather than “capitalism” since it is innovation and the freedom to innovate rather than the accumulation of capital that is responsible for the spectacular increase in wealth since the middle of the 19^th century.  Innovism is a more accurate description of what actually happened.

Unfortunately, 5-10 years ago, the words “inclusiveness” and “diversity” have infected our language from the Left.  Gradually, these terms became so ubiquitous that they became sacred in meaning.  Companies and law firms that formerly spent hours and hours agonizing over how to differentiate themselves in the marketplace now all boast in a very undifferentiated way about their commitment to diversity and inclusiveness.  

And make no mistake, when Progressives use the term “inclusiveness,” they mean that that considerations of gender, race and ethnicity are valued more highly than any other attribute.  Efficiency, effectiveness, skill and experience level are all deeply subordinated to notions of “inclusiveness.”  Even in positions in which health and safety are a priority concern.

Inclusiveness is being codified into our society in many ways.  Many large companies now even put that commitment into their vendor contracts as an obligatory term that the vendor must comply with…. on the par with on time delivery and product warranty.  In Illinois, public companies must report diversity information to the Secretary of State (an earlier version of the bill mandated that public companies must have a woman and a minority on their board).

There are reports that search firms are being told not to even talk with potential white male candidates.  One senior manager at a large financial institution intimated to me, “If you are a white male, you basically can’t get a job with us anymore.”  Skin color and gender considerations are everything in some corners.   The obsession with inclusiveness caused an Evanston school cancelled \\Halloween because the holiday celebration wasn’t deemed “inclusive” enough. 

I thought that religion and high academics could escape the worst of this absurdity.  Two years ago, I attended a program at The University of Chicago’s Becker Friedman Center, the nesting place of Nobel Prize winning economists, and the director spoke about academic excellence and the desire to attract the best PhD candidates in the world.  He said nothing about inclusiveness or diversity.  Just excellence.

But even The University of Chicago is beginning to be brought to heel.  Robert Zimmer’s Welcome Letter to incoming students devoted to entire second paragraph to “inclusiveness.” 

Today we address another critical commitment of the University: to having a community that is open and inclusive to all segments of the nation and the world, which in turn amplifies the nature of our intellectual environment. We often refer to the University as an intellectual community, and it is important to recognize both components of that expression--that we are defined by a commitment to an ambitious and challenging intellectual environment, and by a sustained effort to build a community in which this environment can take full shape. In that context, we reaffirm in the strongest terms the University's values of openness and inclusion, and our dedication to welcoming people of all backgrounds and nations.

Now, of course, Zimmer tried to redefine the term to avoid the common parlance.  But no matter. Once you start adopting the terminology of the Progressives, you are trapped into playing their game on their terms.    Sadly, the bastion of free speech and academic excellence is beginning to bend to the will of the Progressive dictates.   The University of Chicago is EXCLUSIVE by definition, not INCLUSIVE.   It does not exclude by race, gender or sexual orientation, but it certainly excludes those that are not of deeply serious intellectual depth and caliber.   Zimmer may mean one thing, though.  Progressives mean another.

Similarly, religion by definition is exclusive.  It is a club with a particular belief system that prescribes a particular set of behaviors for its adherents.   Several months ago, Pope Francis, the globalist pontiff, used the word “inclusive” to describe the Church.   Even for the leader of the Catholic Church, “inclusiveness” trumps theology. 

Progressives attempt to coerce all institutions into adopting their language and demonstrating or claiming “inclusiveness” is how you avoid their wrath.  But it is highly context dependent and in some instances—religion and high scholarship, where it is a perversion to even use that word.  Zimmer and Pope Francis were wrong to even include it in their messages.  Sometimes the situation calls for just the opposite.  The use of that term in those cases were acts of appeasement.