Woke in Plain English: "Diversity"

Diversity. When the woke use the word “diversity,” they mean people who look different but think alike. For example, a diverse hiring pool would include people who look different, but have nearly identical opinions about social, cultural, and political issues. A black conservative would not be a diverse candidate, because even though a black conservative looks different from the majority group, he doesn’t subscribe to the woke worldview. Ultimately, when you hear the word “diversity,” translate that as: a desire for superficial differences while holding an identical worldview.

---

Leftwing Media Ecosystem

Here’s how the game is played: Someone, say Mr. X, will make a criticism of an idea or of a practice on the left. Note that Mr. X almost always considers himself a liberal and his criticism is aimed at helping to improve a leftwing policy or stance by offering a correction.

There will be a feeding frenzy on the right to put Mr. X on every rightwing show imaginable to talk about his criticism of the left. However, nobody from any mainstream media outlet on the left—MSNBC, NPR, CNN, Vox, Slate, etc.—will reach out to interview Mr. X—not even for hostile interviews.

Consequently, Mr. X will go on rightwing media outlets because nobody else will speak with him. Once Mr. X has been on a few right-of-center venues, those on the left will declare, “Mr. X is a rightwing maniac. He only goes on rightwing shows!” When Mr. X responds, “This is not true. I am not on the right, I’m actually on the left, but nobody on the left will talk to me,” there is silence, doubling down on the accusation that Mr. X is a lunatic on the far right, or accusations that Mr. X is outright lying.

As just one point of contact, think about my Bernie-supporting friend Bret Weinstein’s experience at Evergreen and his subsequent media trajectory in its immediate aftermath.

This has also happened to me many, many times over the years, both internally at Portland State University and externally. Most recently, it was conspicuous when I resigned on September 8 of this year. My resignation letter went viral, outlets from around the world interviewed me, and yet literally nobody with any reasonably sized leftwing platform would engage me in a conversation. I put out a tweet that I retweeted a few times, inviting outlets on the left to have a conversation—not a debate, a conversation. And to assure those on the left that it was not a gotcha, I even suggested the question around which we could center our discussion: “PSU President Stephen Percy wrote that his ‘highest priority is sustaining and amplifying our commitment to social justice.’ Should this be the highest priority of a public university?”

There is a unique problem with the leftwing media ecosystem. Before anyone launches into whataboutism, which is inevitable, I’ll add this comment: Yes, the rightwing media ecosystem does have serious problems. Among those, however, is not that they refuse to speak with people who disagree with them.

Leftwing media outlets, on the other hand, will not converse with or substantively engage those who criticize their policies, positions, or ideas. There are many problems with this phenomenon, but chief among these is that this lack of airing and engaging other voices increases the certainty of those who tune in to leftwing outlets. It is only by genuinely engaging, or at the very least listening to and understanding, opposing views that one’s confidence in one’s beliefs can be justified.

There are millions of people who tune in to leftwing media outlets who do not understand why their fellow citizens would hold views such as not wanting to be vaccinated (for the record, I’m pro-vaccination), what the arguments are against Critical Race Theory, or why many people support a border wall along our southern border. Consumers of solely leftwing media are completely unaware of legitimate arguments made by people who hold different opinions. This is a recipe for strife and division.   

I’m not sure what we can do about this problem, or if it’s too late to do anything about it. It could be that we’re so polarized and entrenched that the refusal to speak with someone on the other side of a political divide will be a given until new media outlets emerge. But how many people would choose to engage with media that doesn’t reliably buttress their opinions? I don’t know the answer to this question.

Meanwhile, this schism is pushing people further into ideological camps where each views the other as an existential threat—even though many people are largely unaware of the rationale behind arguments from the opposing camp. If you have any ideas about how this problem can be meaningfully addressed, please post them in the comments. Because I am at a loss…