Thursday, May 19, 2005

Diversity

The phrase brings up many ideas (at least to me). To me it is one of the things that this country addressed - but not in the way that some people want to address it now. We agree that this country was built on a diverse group of people. Each group of people brought with it, elements of their own culture. As time marched on, some of those elements became more mainstream and a part of what we call American Society. Please note that I said those elements became part of the mainstream rather than we tried to change society to include those diverse elements as part of the American society. This has been a society of assimilation (kind of like the Borgs in Star Trek) where folks from other countries have come here and adapted our culture. Not unlike an American going to France, China or Brazil - they would be fools to whine that those countries aren't respecting, supporting and holding that American's values and views. Yet here we are, this great melting pot of a county and a certain segment of us seem to think that we need to bend and split rules, regulations, teaching methods, manner of dealing with people - based on the individual person. Why?

A school board in my state recently drafted a document regarding the protections that school children should expect when in school. This document included the following sentence (please note, it IS a sentence, only punctuated by commas) - "All students regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, gender, age, ethnicity, culture, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, physical ability, mental ability, physical attributes, ancestry, political party preference, family status or any other condition that makes students diverse or different are entitled to be free from student-to-student bullying and harassment while a student in the School District."


Now, I agree with the idea, but to me it is again PC gone overboard. My sentiments fall along the lines of what one board member said when he asked why the writer didn't just use the word "all". I thought the answer provided by the writer gives insight to how the PC crowd (mostly liberals) think - the document author stated, "It's a growing knowledge, that the interpetation of the word 'all' as it has been used in the constitution where it states that 'all men are created equal' has been changing. 'All' is a very inclusive term, but it is also a very vague term."

Huh? Is this like Bill Clinton asking what the meaning of the word 'is' is? You wanna find out what the word 'all' means, look it up in the fricking dictionary. Folks, there is no vagueness regarding the word 'all'. All means everyone and/or everything depending on what/who you are talking about. If you use the word 'all' you don't need to spell out all the differences, the diversities, it's covered by that one word 'all'.

If you are a citizen of this country you and your rights are the same as any other citizen of this country. You are free to do what our laws allow you to do, regardless of race, sex, religion, etc. It's illegal for me to deny service to someone based strictly on their race, etc. because under our laws that citizen is a member of 'all' and enjoys the same rights as any other 'all'. In our society, in most states, 'all' members of our society can marry one person of the opposite sex, 'all' members are not allowed to marry a member or the same sex or multiple partners of either sex. These rules apply to 'all'. 'All' members will receive a ticket and a fine (possibly jail time) for driving too fast in a car. Your ticket and punishment aren't based on your race, religion, sex, etc.

So am I off base here? Or is the PC crowd trying to poke it's head in where it doesn't belong? Does 'all' mean 'all'? Or do we need to spell out every nuance of every human being that is a citizen in our country? What about the one legged, near-sighted, bi-sexual, one-glass eyed pygmy who became a citizen in the U.S.? Do we need to make sure he is spelled out in various rules? Or does the word 'all' cover him too?

Your opinions and comments welcome.

More Later



11 comments:

JACK ARMY said...

Great post. I linked it in a post on my blog about some goofy PTA in Seattle because it seems to go along.

Keep up the good work.

TrekMedic251 said...

Trying to legislate bullying has been a pet peeve of mine for years! I got the s**t beat out of me all the way through grade school, and when I got to HS, I'd had enough and started fighting back. Guess what? I'm not a sociopathic killer, I'm not a child molester, nor do I bully back.

IMHOP, it's this kind of thinking that took down the WTC on 9/11

Steve said...

I sort of agree with Trek. I was in the same boat, pushed around because I was the new kid in that country middle school... who happened to come from San Francisco. Not a good idea telling a bunch of country kid your from SF at 14. I heard it all. The kid that got picked on the most before I got there, thanked me for coming. Administrators I dealt with turned a blind eye maybe because I never broke the school yard code: I never tattled. I sucked it up and took the abuse, feared suspension for fighting back and took it like a man. I made it out... I went to college, I drove a nicer car than anyone at the 10 year reunion, I guess I am vengeful (you all guessed that one) I think back to one time though where I was a junior or senior in high school, saw a poor kid getting beat up all the time because he was... poor. I saw adminstration doing nothing. I asked the counselor to do something and I saw nothing. So... I beat the kids up that were picking on the poor guy because I knew he felt helpless and I knew exactly where he came from being in that lonely position. Legislating bullying can get bogged down with politics and codes and rhetoric that can impede individuality, competition and free thought aka socialist facsism. But, where does a kid go to be safe if a parent, a teacher or an administrator can't control a bully.
Steve
PS: For more on bullies, read my latest post on my regular blog, it sort of ties into this.

jaymen said...

My guess is that the PCers are doing their utmost to continue stressing "equal rights" for their pet causes, because everyone knows that racism, etc. would come back in full force if they weren't constantly wailing in our ears.

Personally, I'd stick with "all". It takes up much less time to type :-).

Jerry McClellan said...

More about kids, this time bullies: Michael the Archangel blogs about a new school code that seems to really spell out something that should be obvious to every other clear thinking human being on this planet. Yet, for some reason school officials feel they have to include "All" of these discriptions of diversity, to be fair I suppose...

Steve said...

You know though, by not using "all" someone will slip through the cracks and not be covered.

M+ said...

The thing that bothers me most about "diversity" is not the word, but the misuse of it. The "progressive thinkers" like to use it as if they're speaking of the aforementioned "melting pot". But I have a completely different perception of what "diversity" really means.
Ask a stock broker or investor about "diversity" and they'll tell you about separating your funds in an effort to protect them. "Diversity", as it is preached by the left, is not a force for unification and harmony, but quite the opposite. It is meant to divide and marginalize people into groups. Rather than promoting the individual, people are given an identity based upon the group they belong to. And that group is not "American", but something else.
That is why the word "all" isn't being used. In the mind of the liberal there is no "all" only us and them and them and them...

Old Guy said...

I think M+ distilled it to it's simplest form. The liberals want to celebrate diversity by making sure that the whatever is diverse, different, is celebrated, protected and made to stand out - rather than, encompassing it and melding it in our society.

Morris said...

Oh please. You guys need to get a life!

Morris
Ask Morris

M+ said...

Morris,
I would've replied directly to your blog. But, since you seem to equate a simple discourse among internet friends as not having "a life!", I won't waste my time trying to begin one with you.

Jerry McClellan said...

Excellent point M+!