Politics

---

DIVERSITY AND THE DEMOCRATIC IDEAL

By: Drs. Harold and James Gram

It has become commonplace to hear and see examples of “diversity”. What is diversity? In practice, it means freely admitting a Taliban student to Yale University. It means a law school must strive for representation of all races and walks of life. It means an employer must employ a cross section of the population in his workforce. Well, that’s only fair is it not? Isn’t this only the American spirit of enterprise which offers every person the opportunity to succeed if they have the will and capacity? Isn’t it a good thing to have diverse segments of the population represented in our institutions and workplaces? Yes to all questions. But, it is neither traditional entrepreneurial values nor Christian love and brotherhood which drive this new concept of “tolerance”.

In the first place, we are told that the traditional concept of American society as a melting pot of diverse cultures is outmoded, intolerant and racist. Instead, we are admonished to be tolerant. Tolerance in this context means acceptance of diversity. And diversity, as we will discuss further, means a collection of disparate elements and parts. The image of a great jar of multi-colored jellybeans comes to mind.

Second, the notion of diversity is not a benign admonition. It is increasingly enshrined in law that diversity must be enacted. The idea gets support from many Christians who see diversity as an expression of Christian love and charity. Others view tolerance as a measure of a truly democratic country and tolerance for diversity as a measure of the strength of a democracy. Still others reflect socialist values of the equality of cultures as a basis for tolerance of diversity.

In our book The Secret Terrorists we identify sources within society which would destroy the Churches, Christian values, democracy and the characteristic values of Western civilization. Along with socialist ideology, neo-Marxism, and fascism we placed multi-culturalism. Multiculturalism is an institutionalized form of diversity. But multi-culturalism does not mean having goods and services made in India or China. Multi-culturalism is not using the software program created by an Indian graduate of MIT living in his home city of Bombay. It is not teaching Spanish to new legal immigrants in Northern Florida whose parents work in agriculture.

Multiculturalism is an institutional arrangement by which Spanish is accepted along with English as mother language. It is encouraging Muslims to maintain their independent Mosques with support from the American government under the guise of diversity grants. It is identifying blocks of voters by racial and linguistic origins. Multiculturalism encourages the development of tribal behaviors (we are Irish and supporters of the IRA); or Arabs or French or Spanish; and furthers racism. Multi-culturalism fosters religious separateness. It brings the conflicts, values and beliefs from the country of origin and makes them part of the present political system. Of course, politicians use the diversity of multiculturalism for political purposes while ignoring the divisions it creates within society. No wonder politicians are continually promising to “heal” the wounds of society.


There are many negative consequences of multiculturalism. The attempt to retain foreign cultures intact serves to dilute the dominant and traditional American culture. When foreign cultures are encouraged to retain separate identities, the original American culture is eventually swamped.

Multiculturalism marches arm in arm with left-leaning political ideologies such as Neo-Marxism which maintain that one culture is as good as another; as long as Marxist tenets are upheld. Even failed communism is considered equal to the traditional American democratic system. In these systems, the power to act is not derived from discussion and compromise but rather by securing the voting blocks of identifiable groups. Block voting support is ensured by the political means of favoritism, favors and benefits.

Note that multiculturalism distorts democratic principles. Diverse ethnic, religious and social groups place American born citizens at a disadvantage. The reason for this is the self-interest of the separate group. As a separate group, they identify and are reinforced in their distinctiveness; whatever that may be. Thus an Arab group becomes more Arab; an Irish group becomes more Irish, a Spanish group becomes more Spanish. Recent protests, mainly by illegal immigrants, against possible changes to the immigration laws sported as many Mexican flags as American ones. It seems the origin of their protest derived from Mexican, rather than American principles.

Multiculturalism creates language difficulties. The separateness of groups also encourages the retention of the original language. Political news is often misunderstood or filtered through ethnic language media. Politicians are often at a disadvantage in securing the support of groups if they cannot speak the language. Groups themselves, such as large Spanish speaking groups, soon demand their language be used on an equal basis with English. In education, various groups press for their literature and culture to be part of the school curriculum. To account for diversity on the classroom, educators often dilute or substitute the great traditions of English literature for offerings in a variety of cultures.

A government committed to multiculturalism as a form of diversity and tolerance soon slides into a more antidemocratic, even fascist, role. The reason for this is the lobbying power of the separate groups. They can speak with one voice for a segment of voters and offer either sanction or support for the politicians. Calls for democratic reforms to return to a more universal democracy usually revolve around how to integrate immigrants into a more unified society. But, the genie cannot be put back in the bottle. France attempted to integrate Muslims, especially from former colonies in Africa, into French society. The result included riots, violence and a near civil emergency. Whether other groups would react with such revolutionary tactics is moot. Whether disparate groups based on religion, political persuasion, or culture ever develops into revolutionary factions is a thought to be taken seriously. Many would have thought that Ireland was too well developed to ever experience their problems.


Multiculturalism eventually attacks the system if justice. Islamic groups lobby for a justice system based on Islamic law. Reservation Indians lobby for a justice system based on their traditional system of crime and punishment. These attacks on the legal system are often small and seemingly insignificant. Can a strict Muslim woman be forced to have her picture taken for a driving license? Can a Sikh be forced to remove his turban and wear a hard hat on a construction site? Each decision mounts up into significant changes in our justice system. Southern California already responds to illegal immigration by meting out different justice to Mexicans than to native-born Americans.

It is impossible to isolate the dangers of multiculturalism from Islamic groups. Such groups are front and center in pressure politics and in forcing changes in all forms of American culture. The presence of diverse cultures in a city like New York seems to enrich the whole cultural experience. But behind this benign screen of diversity lurks the extremists whose goals are not a richer American life. Their goals, attainable through the medium of multiculturalism, are extreme changes to American politics and culture. The goal of extreme Muslims is, of course, the eradication of the United States. Multiculturalism is the opening wedge of control by Islam and other religions of that type.

We can protest that this won’t ever happen in the United States. Surely the United States is too strong; too established; too resistant to change. But it is only one step from multiculturalism to relative ethics and indeterminate morals because decisions may offend some group. Multiculturalism is only one step away from getting rid of democracy because it cannot handle revolts, demonstrations, and pressure groups. Once there are identifiable groups, demonstrations become easy to create and tend to create even more cultural divisions.

We pointed out in The Secret Terrorists that Western Civilization is under attack. We forecast that universities with their left leaning liberalism and pride in diversity would not defend American values. Yale has admitted an identified Taliban. We predicted that American institutions would come under attack from various cultural groups and we now watch with horror the effort to make Spanish a second language in Florida and elsewhere. We argued that there would be two different systems of law. We now find Islamic Law being taught at Harvard and Columbia.

How have we allowed this state of affairs to emerge and grow? As both individuals and groups we have not defended our traditional values and institutions. We have allowed Situational ethics to undermine the moral life. We have tolerated graft and corruption in politics and business. We have allowed our Christians churches to become more socialized than theological. We have stood idly by as our freedoms have been chipped away. We should now understand that all of this has happened because we allowed the lie of diversity = tolerance to exist and be fostered into the concept of multiculturalism.

Adapted from The Secret Terrorists, by Drs. Harold and James Gram, published by Gram Publishing ( ISBN 0-9731980-0-1)

---

PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR BELOW LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE