The attacks in Paris were not “‘diversity’ in action,” as Thomas Sowell positions it, because he has the concepts of diversity management completely wrong. In my opinion, the attacks were the result of extremists exploiting a failure of the French government to live up to its principles of liberty, equality and fraternity (the motto of France).
Europe is about 25 years ahead of us regardinga key set of related problems: aging workforce and low birthrate. After World War II, we had seven workers per retiree; we now haveless than five (France has roughly three), andby 2050 we will have two workers per retiree (http://www.econdataus.com/workers.html). A whole host of things we take for granted will not work attwo workers per retiree. Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, our half-trillion-dollar-per-year military, farm subsidies, scientific research and development simply can’t be done. Our President recently took executive action togive a pathto legality for millions of documented immigrants already living here, in effect doing what Europe did with the European Union and lowered/eliminated bordersbut that’s only a first step. The problem is that Europe, including the UK, isolates its immigrantsor allows them to be isolated and refuses to take responsibility for assimilating them. I don’t think the United States does a great job with assimilation, but we’re far better than the rest of the world. For example, French minorities have practically zero representation in the French assembly much worse than our Congress.
France and the rest of the EU take the easy and common human reaction to “outsiders”:isolate them. And they’re not alonethere are plenty of people in this country who are making their bones politically by encouraging xenophobic racist talk about “those” people and how they’re coming here to take our benefits.That’s a sucker play thatrich people have been pulling on poor people forever.
France created its own perfect stormisolated and societally rejected immigrants who were readily identifiable by skin color or accent were recruited by criminal politicians hiding behind religion. It’s not difficult to get disaffected young men to pick up a rifle and start shooting; this is the basis behind every revolution since the beginning of time.
But this isn’t entirely a government problem; it’s a societal one as well.It’s interesting when you see a media outlet position itself as a victim when the problem is at least partially of its own creation. I think it was completely irresponsible for Sony to produce a filma comedyabout assassinating a sovereign head of state. (Can you imagine FOX’s reaction to an Iraqi film about assassinating Dick Cheney) And it’s telling that we all found out after the fact that their senior executives were sending racist emails. In Charlie Hebdo, cartoon images of Mohammed were strikingly similar in style to Nazi cartoons of Jewish people. Of the people killed at Charlie Hebdo, only one was nonwhite: a copy editor of Algerian descent. I don’t think it’s funny when majority people parody, pantomime or otherwise denigrate minorities because they’re in a position of power to do so without obvious repercussions. When those repercussions occur, and endanger the public, is the media outlet (or anyone not living up to the ideals of the society that they draw their freedom protections from) completely innocent I’m not justifying or condoning these murders, but at a certain point poking a bear with a stick while wearing a blindfold is irresponsibleand itendangers innocent people standing around you who have to deal with the enraged bear.
Where Thomas Sowell has it completely right is in his argument for assimilation. If you want to come to this country, you have to abide by our ConstitutionI don’t care what it was like back home, or what your religion says, or what you did. It’s also critical for people to learn English in this country. Research has shown that children taught in their native language do not do as well as children taught English first and then their coursework in English.
“Diversity in action” does not describe a static end state (unassimilated communities). Diversity in action, in the corporate and/or societal sense, is about taking care of people with one standard. And if your values include that people are created equally, that one standard is easy to define; all you have to do is look at outcome. For example, if you’re the CEO of Microsoft,you would be completely justified in giving women advice for their career development if 50 percent of your direct reports were women. But giving advice when only 20 percent of your most senior executives are women not only makes you sound ridiculous, it also has a deeply damaging effect on the company’s ability to recruit, and develop and retain.
“Diversity in action” in the nation-state sense is about living up to your ideals and making sure that all citizens, most importantly newcomers, understand their rights, learn the language and culture, and understand the clear repercussions of not integrating into their new homes. I can’t think of a single country that does this well. It’s too easy for majority citizens to blame the newcomers, when nobody in their government jobs is fired for not doing them well. Much like corporate America,the birth rate of our majority citizens means that our country will decline sharply without fresh labor.
Thomas Sowell is completely wrong when he describes “diversity in action”and I feel no solidarity with a publication that mocks a religion which 1.6 billion people believe in, especially when the people in that publication are all not from that religion and are, unlike those being mocked, from the majority. Nor do I have tolerance for politicians who develop terrorists to advance their political agenda.
People behave amazingly consistently. They thrive when they’re cared for, mentored, guided and valued.This is “diversity in action.”
