Vis Lupi Est Grex

Diversity: The Paradox of Paradox

ASUN has a diversity commission that has the supposed goal of helping to push individuals understanding of identity beyond traditional defining characteristics. We should not see black, brown or white. Male and female, there is no difference. Gay, straight, bi, trans-gender, etc does not matter.

There are a few things that are hard to articulate surrounding this particular topic. Sean's attempt at levity and irony attempted to hit on this. There are nearly 40 comments--some not very civil, others noteworthy--on the post, most of which demonstrate a lack of rhetorical skill. Being a vainglorious bastard, I hope to provide some tools here to help some of the people talking about this. I also hope that this might move the discussion, if it continues here, in a more civil direction.

It seems to me, in my very humble and often humbled opinion, that we must recognize the extant notion of diversity to move beyond using it to define people. We cannot flip a switch and divest the world of bigotry, racism, hatred, sexism, ageism, zealotry etc. These are cultural patterns that are in some cases millennium old. They are ingrained in the cultural psyche (gasp, how dare I), embedded in History. This is the unfortunate ambiguity facing the Diversity Commission.

There is also the notion of identity with which to contend. Starting with the premise that individuals are in fact unique presents a problem in attempting to define someone's identity. In the West (gasp again) at least, there is I think a prevalent notion that the individual has a unique identity. And in fact that identity is a natural right. In the simplistic bifurcation of society into state and individual, the state has not the right to demand conformance to social norms (unless the norms protect other individuals from harm) and most not attempt to subsume the individual.

But if we demand an identity, must we not have means to define that identity? Undoubtedly, a concept such as race fails utterly in capturing essential characteristics of an individual. However, other things like religion, geographic location and nationality do often capture parts of a persons identity. And this line of reasoning leads to the trap of accepting these ideas, but we must not accept them, because by accepting them we acknowledge their legitimacy, and we started off not wanting to recognize that they have a legitimate role in defining the individual.

It is here that reality strikes a blow.

Barry Belmont, who I believe confesses to the egregious sin of being a Libertarian, wrote the following in a post belittling Speaker Geremia's apparent non-stance stance (which, unlike Belmont, I think had some valid criticism on contributor Sean's puerile post),

I'm honestly a little surprised by that stance, but delving into why would be too many words tangent to my point. To the point, Belmont is from what I have perceived a man of ideas. He has, although I am only acquainted with his writings on SFL, impressed me with his knowledge, logic and rhetoric. I know him solely for his ideas. And he has claimed it is the merit of a person's ideas that is what is worth recognition. However, it is in these ideas themselves that we cannot easily or simply escape from religion or race or sex, because it is these ideas that define, at least in part, identity.

I hold very strongly my belief in the sovereignty of the individual. And I also unequivocally believe my feelings on this have been very heavily shaped by my socioeconomic status and my opinions on religion. These nebulous ideas do play a role in helping us use language to capture the essences of identity. They may be flawed, and each of us has a unique definition for them, but they nonetheless do help create an ultimately imperfect definition of who we are.

And it is for this reason, I see legitimacy for something like the Diversity Commission to exist. However, I have not seen anything from the Diversity Commission that attempts to engage students in this dialogue.