A sure-fire way these days to know whether a person, institution, or organization is not diverse or inclusive is when any of the aforementioned insists that an applicant for employment submit a diversity and inclusion statement as a part of the hiring process. Why is this so? By its very nature, such a demand fails to exhibit diversity and inclusion. In fact, diversity and inclusion statements imply a superior viewpoint that is often purely subjective, as it places an ultimatum upon them that cannot be sustained upon scrutiny for clarification.
For example, if an employer demands absolute diversity and inclusion of all of its employees, does that not extend to moral and spiritual demands, as well? Must the Christian be excluded from employment because he-she does not agree that a Satanist should be teaching on the Bible in a philosophy course or that a convicted pedophile should not be teaching a Sex-Ed course? If the institution or organization doing the hiring is consistent with it demand the answer would be an unmitigated yes! Yet, how is that being diverse or inclusive?
What is missing from the latest attempt to exclude certain individuals with a particular view on truth and reality is objectivity and clarity about either. Arguing that all views are equal or that all persons are equal, simply because they feel that way, really means that no view is absolutely true and that equality is in the hands of the persons holding the biggest stick. A classic example of forced diversity and inclusion was seen recently in the homosexual-baker wedding cake debacle in Colorado. Is that really the standard potential employees should be expected to meet?
Rather than force anyone to comply with someone’s subjective whims about diversity and inclusion, how about it be asked whether the applicant loves the Lord his-her God and loves his-her neighbor as him- or herself? After all, Jesus said that was the fulfillment of the law. Besides, if Christian love was the standard, especially at an institution that claims to be “Christian” as part of its moniker, followed-up by subsequent action consistent with that love, then there would be no need to ask for nebulous statements about diversity and inclusion. Moreover, there would be an objective reason for either denying employment or dismissing those who failed to practice such charity.
Of course, it is expected that this statement on diversity and inclusion will be met with resistance, hostility, and maybe even a scoff, which only further proves the point. Demands for diversity and inclusion statements are not intended to welcome absolute diversity and inclusion, but just the opposite. They are intended to be uniform and exclusive, not diverse and inclusive, especially toward those who see that there is a much more objective way to go about judging a person’s person and qualifications. But, then again, just how many people are really interested in objectivity, much less true diversity and absolute inclusiveness, these days?
