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 19th 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.