The Nihilism of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Katy is a first generation Jewish American high school student, with college applications due right around the corner she excitedly gathers up her transcripts of an extremely hard earned 4.3 GPA. Her fellow classmate and friend Linda, is also a first generation Nigerian American high school student. Linda also boasts a proud GPA of 3.7. They both shriek with excitement as they both submit their application together to their dream university UC Davis. As the application process unfolds, Katy and Linda find themselves confronting the harsh realities of affirmative action in real time. Linda's application receives a commendatory response, as she opens her acceptance letter into UC Davis. Her dream has materialized, she was accepted, she feels a surge of joy and gratitude. Linda has faced her share of challenges and has displayed commendable determination, but the affirmative action policy promoting diversity has swung the decision in her favor. Katy craves nothing more than to make her hard working immigrant parents proud, she has worked a long hard four years for this. Staying late after classes, late night studying almost everyday, and even taking college classes early, Katy has been longing for this moment for a long four years and the moment has finally arrived. Despite Katy's outstanding 4.3 GPA and her unwavering commitment to her academic journey, she receives a rejection letter from UC Davis. The disappointment is visibly seen on her ghostly face as she crumples up and throws her rejection letter away, her family stands in the background with their tiaras on and an expression of betrayal as they felt that Katy would get accepted with pure certainty, especially since her friend Linda with a 3.7 GPA made the cut. This turn of events amplifies the complexities and moral dilemmas surrounding diversity, equity and inclusion. While the policy is intended to rectify historical injustices and promote diversity, it inevitably raises questions about fairness and the true meaning of equality. Katy's rejection illustrates the potential cost of such policies for individuals who have worked tirelessly to achieve their goals. Meanwhile, Linda's acceptance highlights the opportunity and hope that affirmative action can provide for those from underrepresented backgrounds. It’s a battleground of sorts, one that will dictate the future of our country and us, the people, “we're at a paradigm-shifting moment when we can replace a destructive form of diversity, equity and inclusion” (Brooks).

Nihilism. Nihilism is a family of views within philosophy that rejects generally accepted or fundamental aspects of human existence, such as knowledge, morality, or meaning (“Nihilism Internet Encyclopedia”). The story of Katy and Linda reminds us that affirmative action is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It forces us to grapple with the paradox of creating equal opportunities while respecting individual merit. It calls for an ongoing dialogue and reflection on the ever evolving concept of fairness and justice in education and society.

This situation necessitates an ongoing dialogue and reflection, as we navigate the continually evolving landscape of what is fairness and justice in education and society. To play devil’s advocate I will present to you both the pros and the cons of diversity and equality of outcome and will leave you to judge and rectify your own thoughts and ideas on the matter. First, the good. Affirmative action and D.E.I. originally emerged from good intentions to rectify historical inequalities, promote diversity, and level the playing field for marginalized groups. It aimed to break down systemic barriers that had prevented individuals like Linda from accessing higher education opportunities. Affirmative action also plays a pivotal role in breaking the cycle of poverty and limited access to quality education. For students like Linda, who have faced economic and social challenges, it offers a path to upward mobility. And for professors it insinuates, “that they best serve society not by being open and curious and searching for the truth but by propagating this ideological framework” (Brooks). D.E.I. creates opportunities for talented individuals who might not have had access to the resources and support necessary to excel in the workplace. In doing so, affirmative action and D.E.I. uplifts entire communities, paving the way for future generations to overcome similar obstacles. Moreover, affirmative action fosters social cohesion and reduces prejudice. It sends a powerful message that society values diversity and is committed to addressing past injustices. It also promotes that “the goal of rising above bigotry is naïve. Bigotry and racism are permanent and indestructible components of American society” (Brooks). Believing in such ideals and addressing them can lead to a more harmonious and equitable society in the long run. They both encourage individuals from diverse backgrounds to interact, collaborate, and learn from one another. This, in turn, helps break down stereotypes and fosters a greater understanding of the unique challenges and experiences of different communities. In essence, affirmative action and D.E.I. is a crucial policy that promotes fairness and social progress. By providing opportunities for underrepresented individuals, it helps to correct historical injustices, create more inclusive learning environments, and drive positive social change. While it's not without its complexities and challenges, its advantages in advancing equality and diversity should not be overlooked. It remains a pivotal step towards building a more equitable and inclusive society…. all of those things are true, true if you have a childishly optimistic view of the world.

Affirmative action and D.E.I. is like a children’s fairytale, indifferent from asking a child what they could wish for and they respond with “world peace.” However, as we've matured into thinking and self-sustaining adults, we recognize the complexities of our reality. We understand that achieving universal peace and equity is a daunting task, as it takes just one, literally oneeee, quarrelsome force to sow immeasurable division among us. You know what, let’s have equality everywhere, equality of outcome, equality of university admissions, equality of income. You know what? Someone already tried that, it’s called COMMUNISM. Trying to find equality on all sides of the spectrum causes more issues than it does resolution and instead the enforcers of the law, the government, gets unfathomable tyrannical power such as seen in the Soviet Union. Growing up in Ukraine and experiencing first hand the long lingering effects of communism, seeing such a push towards wokeness and equality on all fronts is beyond frightening to me. Quite literally this is communism under the guise of righteousness, but it is in fact self proclaimed righteousness, it’s an attempt to gain all the glory of true heroism without having to work for it, but instead to show that you stand with the pack of the wokeness or your fellow communist comrades. The starvation of millions of Ukrainians to death was a result of Soviet policies. The Holodomor can be seen as the culmination of an assault by the Communist Party and Soviet state on the Ukrainian peasantry, who resisted Soviet policies. That’s the part that frightens me, today we live in a world where speaking out against the woke mob is intolerable, those who do get canceled, they lose their jobs, even their livelihoods. People are being silenced in ways that are much much more subtle that guises how drastic this issue really is. It's about conforming to the ideology of wokeness or similar movements, much like the conformity to communist ideals.

I have also observed that the wokeness movement that promotes this fairytale-esque equality sees itself as the minority, the marginalized outcasts, as if the rest of society is standing up against them. In reality, they are the most protected movement there is, when the social media giants such as Google and Facebook overly protect their movement and censor any opposition to their ideals, they are in fact truly the only ones being given a voice (Spoto). This one-sided protection amplifies their voice, creating an echo chamber where opposing voices are silenced. Without opposition and a platform for free speech and instead a platform of only group validation, any idea can become valid because if we aren’t told that our feelings can be wrong sometimes (like toddlers being sheltered by their mothers), anything will soon become allowed. Just as a recent example, it is clearly becoming a more and more prevalent issue of equality on all fronts, including sexual equality, as pedophiles are now being labeled as “minor attracted persons”, if they “feel” that way towards children and if our feelings are more important than what is right, soon pedophilia will become normalized and unaccounted for (Jahnke). There needs to be a boundary. And a serious one at that.

Without any boundary or line established this venom of socialism/communism will soon seep into more than just our colleges and unexpectedly at that. The Supreme Court recently ruled that colleges can't use race in their admissions process (Salvatore). This decision is seen by some as a reason why affirmative action might not be a good idea. It means that universities like Harvard and UC Davis will have to find other ways to make their student body diverse while following the law. So, this ruling suggests that maybe, just maybe, we should look for different ways to promote fairness in college admissions and the workplace that don't rely on considering race as means of hand-out advancement.

This is a serious issue on all accounts and it seems like no one is even talking about this, everyone is stuck in their own echo chambers on social media with their feelings being validated without discussion/interaction with the opposing side. This is something that we as an entire nation need to come into council for, this is our public square debate. This is something we should all find agreement on, to find justice for both sides equally through discourse and talks on the issue instead of an elementary style food fight where one side bombards the other and the latter returns the favor.

I also interestingly found that before the issue of affirmative action became deeply politicized, the key takeaway was that, despite its inherent flaws and disparities, there seemed to be no more effective method for serving disadvantaged communities than adhering to objective tests such as the SAT and the ACT (Jordan Peterson). The choice was not made because these tests produced perfectly equitable outcomes; in fact, they still generated differential results. However, the underlying rationale was that, in comparison to any alternative system, objective testing held the potential for much more equity and equality than anything that affirmative action can and has provided. And yet despite all these facts, our universities find it something of the past, something that marginalizes underprivileged students somehow. My younger sister who just got admitted into our very own Sac State University said she didn’t even have to take the SAT or ACT at all! This is how disastrous it’s been getting as of late.

Before all the arguing about affirmative action, people generally thought that using tests like the SAT and ACT was a pretty good way to help underprivileged communities. These tests weren't perfect, but they still created a difference of outcomes between students, but they were seen as a fairer option compared to other methods. The idea was not to make everything perfectly equal but to make things more equal than affirmative action alone. Getting equal outcomes in society isn't just about one thing, it's a big, complicated goal that involves many parts like education, jobs, and support systems. Using tests like the SAT was seen as one part of the plan to make education more equal. The debate over affirmative action and standardized testing should make us think about all the ways we can make society fairer, instead of arguing about just one thing. And that applies to D.E.I. training as well, Brooks sarcastically states it by saying that “we shouldn't emphasize what unites all human beings; we should emphasize what divides us.” It is the fact that we should NOT emphasize what divides us as it will only leave every group feeling like they’re some special victim that deserves free ennoblement up the social ladder. It should be about finding the best mix of strategies to make things more equal for everyone.

Diversity, equality, and inclusion…“in other words, spreading a specific ideology is more important than integrity” (Brooks). Despite the ongoing debates and the philosophical dilemmas surrounding this policy, it continues to be a topic of discussion, reflecting the constant evolution of our understanding of fairness and justice. In the end, the quest for the right balance between equal opportunity and individual merit remains an ongoing journey. The story of Katy and Linda, and the ever so philosophical discourse surrounding diversity and equity, remind us that there are no easy answers, but rather a continual exploration of how we can create a fairer and more inclusive society for all. But more importantly, it should invoke within us a need to speak out, even against the tyrannical traps that may await us, because in the end, truth emerges, and it emerges no matter what may stand in its path, that is the very reason it is called truth. I believe that no one gets away with anything, ever! And though equality of outcome is currently being promoted in the same way communism was at its emergence, its nihilism may not reveal itself right away, it may take years even, you may not even remember the what or why, but the truth always comes out. She is uncynically just and she is always seeking vengeance, she is simply that, the truth.

Word Count: 2261

Works Cited

Brooks, David. "Universities are Failing at Inclusion: [Op-Ed]." New York Times, Nov 17, 2023. ProQuest, http://proxy.lib.csus.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fnewspape rs%2Funiversities-are-failing-at-inclusion%2Fdocview%2F2890612210%2Fse-2%3Facc ountid%3D10358. Jahnke, Sara A, et al. “Pedophile, Child Lover, or Minor-Attracted Person? Attitudes toward Labels among People Who Are Sexually Attracted to Children.” Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 51, no. 8, 29 Sept. 2022, pp. 4125–4139, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36175817/, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02331-6. Accessed 14 Oct. 2023.

“Nihilism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.” Utm.edu, 2023, iep.utm.edu/nihilism/. Accessed 14 Oct. 2023.

Peterson, Jordan B. “This Man Ended Affirmative Action | Dr. Peter Arcidiacono | EP 384.” YouTube, 21 Sept. 2023, www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDxzrz6CZR0&t=59s&ab_channel=JordanBPeterson. Accessed 15 Oct. 2023.

Salvatore, Anna, et al. “The Supreme Court’s Decision on Affirmative Action, Explained.” The Princetonian, 30 June 2023, www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2023/06/princeton-supreme-court-ruling-affirmativeaction-explained-college-admissions#:~:text=What%20exactly%20did%20the%20Supre me,of%20their%20holistic%20admissions%20process. Accessed 14 Oct. 2023.

Spoto, Maia. “Google and Apple Back Affirmative Action in Harvard Case.” Time, Time, Aug. 2022, time.com/6202494/google-apple-affirmative-action-harvard/. Accessed 14 Oct. 2023.