DEI at Harvard and Elsewhere Is Working Perfectly for its Intended Purpose: To Pit the Have-nots Against Each Other by Race
The right's attack on Harvard for its 'DEI promotion of an incompetent Claudine Gay' to be its first black president is part of a centuries-long ruling class divide-and-rule strategy
Right wing billionaire Bill Ackman and others on the right had a field day with Harvard’s first black and now-ex president Claudine Gay. Gay was unable to respond coherently at the recent Congressional hearing at which she and two other university presidents were accused of not defending Jews on campus by suppressing calls there for genocide of Jews. This was a bogus accusation; the university presidents could not, however, explain that it was a bogus accusation, nor coherently respond to it, because they were beholden to billionaires like the very same Bill Ackman who was attacking them for being incoherent, as I explain here.
Because Gay in particular could not respond coherently, however, and because she was shortly thereafter charged with many instances of plagiarism, and because she was black, she became a sitting duck for the accusation by Bill Ackman and others on the right that she was just one more example of an unqualified minority person promoted solely because of their race because of DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) policies now being implemented in corporations and universities.
This controversy about DEI is one that the ruling class (conservatives and liberals both—working in cahoots) orchestrates for the purpose of pitting the have-nots against each other along race lines. The purpose is to divide and rule the have-nots, to undermine our solidarity across race lines, and thereby retain for the ruling class its immense wealth and privilege and power.
DEI is the most recent way for the ruling class to implement its divide-and-rule strategy. It continues the long practice of pitting white and non-white have-nots against each other by doing things to make whites disrespect non-whites or fear them or resent them. This was done long ago with race-based chattel slavery, then continued with Jim Crow, then racist prison incarceration, then Affirmative Action, then “anti-racism” a la Ibram X. Kendi who advocates overt discrimination against whites in the name of “anti-racism” (see the #9 article listed below for the gory details of this in a Boston hospital today), then a bitter conflict over CRT (Critical Race Theory) being taught in our K-12 schools (see article #1 below), and lately a deliberately divisive public discourse about reparations (see article #8 below.)
To understand this larger context of divide-and-rule along race lines in which DEI occurs, I urge you to read at least a couple (take your pick) of the following:
“Here’s What CRT (Critical Race Theory) Censors” (about the origin of race-based chattel slavery);
“We Need THIS, Not Affirmative Action” (this shows that Affirmative Action was designed to make white working class people resent non-whites);
“Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Explanation that Jim Crow Harmed Working Class Whites As Well As Blacks”;
“How the 18:1 Law Makes the War on Drugs Racist” (this racist prison incarceration took off under the administration of the same president who initiated Affirmative Action: Richard Nixon);
“CRIME AND RACE” & “Yes. Let’s Talk about Black on Black Crime”
“REPARATIONS THE GOOD WAY FOR SLAVERY AND JIM CROW AND GENOCIDE AGAINST AMERICAN INDIANS”;
“THE NEW LIBERAL-SPEARHEADED STRATEGY IN HEALTH CARE TO DIVIDE THE HAVE-NOTS ALONG RACE LINES, ALL IN THE NAME OF 'ANTI-RACISM’” (This is Ibram X. Kendi’s brainchild—anti-white racial discrimination in the name of “anti-racism”—in action.)
Why Is DEI Pushed So Hard by the Corporate Elite?
A little history helps to understand why we have DEI everywhere today. The government killed Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1968 because the Civil Rights Movement that he led had gained and was continuing to gain more support from white working class people for the demand to abolish all forms of racial discrimination. This was an extremely popular demand among non-white and white working class people alike. The ruling class feared this new solidarity of the have-nots and decided to destroy it by making the Civil Rights Movement do a 180 and demand, not the abolition of racial discrimination that was a unifying demand, but rather anti-white discrimination—a.k.a. “Affirmative Action”—that was the opposite. This was sure to replace solidarity between white and non-white have-nots with racial resentment. This was the actual, though never stated, purpose of Affirmative Action. Read the gory details in the #3 article in the above list of articles.
The chief and notable feature of DEI is that, just like Affirmative Action, it is NOT about identifying and eliminating oppressive racial discrimination. It is not, for example, about identifying racial discrimination in corporate hiring practices or apartment renting practices. If it were about this then it would entail things like this:
Make it a crime with a big punishment to commit racial discrimination in hiring or renting, etc.;
Have the FBI submit resumes of made-up job applicants that were virtually identical except in ways that indicated the race of the applicant to see if there was a pattern of racial discrimination in which applicants got called for an interview.
Have the FBI send different races of people with identical backgrounds to try to rent an apartment, and see if there was a pattern of racial discrimination in who got accepted as a tenant.
If this is what DEI were all about then it would be extremely popular among ordinary people of ALL races. This is because most people, regardless of race, believe that discriminating against a person because of their race is wrong.
But DEI is not about identifying, proving and prosecuting oppressive racial discrimination as the obvious and logical way of ending it. It is about making sure that a certain number of corporate positions are filled by non-whites. Read this ABC News article defining DEI’s “diversity” to see that this is so:
DEI is about filling a certain number positions with non-whites no matter what is required to make that happen. Because of this, the non-white person who gets a position due to DEI cannot help but be suspected of getting it merely because of their race and in spite of the fact that they were less qualified than whites who did not get the position because they were white. This suspicion (which harms the non-white person who gets the position, of course, as well as making whites angry) will arise whether or not there is any truth to it. The DEI process makes this suspicion of unjust anti-white racial discrimination inevitable; even more so when there is a Bill Ackman to stir the pot!
Note that the same people who promote and defend DEI also promote deliberate and explicit, not just suspected, anti-white racial discrimination in some cases. Two doctors in the cardiac department of Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital implemented, in their own words, “preferential care based on race or ethnicity,” with over-the-top approval for this by virtually the entire liberal media (read all about this in article #9 in the above list of articles.)
DEI Is DESIGNED to Foment White Resentment of Non-Whites
The inevitability of this suspicion of anti-white racial discrimination when DEI is involved, together with the fact that the powerful people who are implementing DEI do not focus on identifying, proving and prosecuting actual racial discrimination, can only mean this: the purpose of DEI is not to end racial discrimination but to generate suspicion that there is anti-white racial discrimination, that people are not being hired on the basis of their actual qualifications but rather on the basis of their race, with preference given to non-whites. This suspicion (and in some cases such as Brigham and Women’s Hospital, solid knowledge) of anti-white racial discrimination being done in the name of “anti-racism” can only have one effect: creating among white working class people resentment against non-whites. This resentment undermines solidarity between white and non-white have-nots, thereby implementing the centuries-long divide-and-rule strategy of the ruling class.
The ruling class promotes a deliberately divisive public debate over DEI. Conservatives, such as the billionaire Bill Ackman (read about him here), for example, denounce the naming of Claudine Gay as president of very pro-DEI Harvard University as an example of a black person getting a job they were not qualified for, getting it only because they were black. Liberals (represented by the mainstream media minus Fox News and its local versions) deny that DEI is anti-white racial discrimination, but their denial (and this is by design!) lacks credibility because DEI is in fact about putting non-whites in positions because they are non-white; it is not about identifying, proving and prosecuting racial discrimination.
DEI serves the ruling class in yet another way also. It stigmatizes the good idea of equality as being a stupid idea. DEI does this because it implies that the way to get equality in society is for people to be hired or appointed to a position because of their race, not because of their qualification for the position. But everybody knows that if this is what equality means, then equality is stupid because people have different talents and skills and knowledge and if a person doesn’t, say, know how to do brain surgery or fly a passenger jet then they should not be hired to be a brain surgeon or a jet pilot no matter what their race is, duh!
The egalitarian idea of equality has nothing to do with the stupid idea that DEI implies. Egalitarian equality says that only a person who is qualified for a position should have that position, and also that there should be no rich and no poor. Read about this here. The conservatives, such as Bill Ackman, who rail against the wrongness of the stupid DEI kind of equality absolutely hate the SENSIBLE egalitarian idea of equality.
21st Century Divide-and-Rule
DEI is just one way that the ruling class divides the have-nots with what I call 21st Century divide-and-rule. 21st Century divide-and-rule works like this. First promote an obviously stupid or unjust idea in the name of making society more just and fair. Then have the liberal media declare that anybody who does not support this stupid or unjust idea is an immoral person—a racist or transphobe or homophobe or whatever. At the same time have the conservative media point out the obvious truth that the new idea is actually stupid or unjust. When done “correctly” this will split the have-nots close to right down the middle. Read about this here.
How Can We Make Our Society Equal in the GOOD (not DEI) Meaning of that Word?
I have some suggestions for how YOU can help this happen here.