When it comes to the modern working landscape, fewer things are more fatuous and risible than the mandatory diversity course. I have heard people state that when taking such a course, “I just failed diversity.” So what do we make of this anachronism in the modern talent-driven marketplace?
Such courses blithely proclaim that “demographics are changing” with no insight as to how exactly they were allowed to change (every country chooses whom it will admit). Then, the followup to that mindless statement is drenching that observation in the saccharine syrup of empty positivity: “Everything is changing and it is good!” Change is a vector. You change from one thing to something else, changing not only in number also but in quality. You cannot declare that change is good without evaluating where it is taking you and from what you are moving away. To state that change is always good is nothing but a public declaration of idiocy.
Another common foible of such courses is the predictable attack upon American unity. E Pluribus Unum is something that such courses must destroy, because it places responsibility upon the many to become one. The diversity relic-idol requires that no-one bear any responsibility, especially responsibility for adapting to a country that they claim as their home. To those who come here expecting a handout, may the hands you think will welcome you instead be fists full of knives.
Now, the final act. The ultimate and inescapable hypocrisy in these diversity courses is that they seek to integrate people into the company’s values and zeitgeist. This is an on-the-ground repudiation of diversity. It is a monument to integration, unity, and agreement; it is not a mosaic or a tossed salad. It is the understanding that in order for a company to function, its associates must have a high measure of agreement on fundamental matters. That is why companies invest so much in such efforts. Are companies reserving to themselves something they are denying American culture and society as a whole? Yet such courses would not be necessary if American culture were less diverse, for then diversity would not be widespread enough to cause cultural turmoil and most people would already have the values that the company seeks.
The diversity course is like the man in the talent show who had lost his talent a long time ago; he is the one that people put up with and hold back their laughter, but no-one praises. It is an embarrassment, as well as an insulting bygone that informs no-one and wearies everyone.