Daily Broadside | DEI—A.K.A. “DIE”—Is Going Away, But Not Really

I was in business for 25 years before being terminated in a “restructuring” last year. I was the only one in my division that was released (well, my manager was, too, but that was only because he was managing two of us and without me his role wasn’t necessary), and I found out that there was also one here and one there, many of them long time employees of the company like I was. “Restructuring,” while a legitimate business activity, is also a useful catch-all for corporate downsizing when the motivation is somewhat suspect.

While I miss some things about the business, there’s a lot I don’t miss. The emphasis on “DEI,” for instance, the acronym for “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion,” a.k.a. Diversity, Equality and Inclusion, a.k.a., Diversity and Inclusion, a.k.a., Diversity. The company had significantly increased its attention on getting more women and minorities in positions of leadership, along with supporting celebrations of sexual deviancy of all kinds, and that was all reflected regularly in communications at all times of the year—not just when it was a particular month to recognize some group in some square in the matrix of so-called disadvantaged people.

I am not at all opposed to women, blacks, hispanics, gays, lesbians and other “under-represented” peoples having gainful employment. I’m not opposed to them being in positions of leadership. Over the course of my career the majority of my managers have been women, with one or two exceptions. Many of them were high performers. Some of them were not. Two of them were LGBTQ+, one being a lesbian in a same-sex “marriage.” And I’ve had many female, black, gay and lesbian co-workers.

So it’s not “diversity” that I’m opposed to. What I am opposed to is the artificial imposition of “diversity” for the sake of diversity.

For example, I’ve seen a more qualified white male get passed over for a role in favor of a less experienced Asian female because “diversity.” DEI is clearly reverse discrimination and, while you could never prove it in court with that example, that’s what it is.

Lately, it seems like others are getting annoyed with it, too, and the current iteration of employment discrimination is having to morph into some other euphemism to avoid the legal risks that come with profiling candidates for jobs.

The demise of DEI has been in the news for a while, but outlets like Jeff Bezos’ The Washington Post (Democracy Dies in Darkness—pfffft!) has recently sat up and taken notice (hard left liberal link alert!).

Last year, Eli Lilly’s annual shareholders letter referenced the acronym for diversity, equity and inclusion 48 times. This year, “DEI” is nowhere to be found.

In March, Starbucks got shareholder approval to replace “representation” goals with “talent” performance for executive bonus incentives. At Molson Coors, “People & Planet” metrics have displaced environmental, social and governance (ESG) goals, and the acronym DEI has disappeared altogether.

Amid growing legal, social and political backlash, American businesses, industry groups and employment professionals are quietly scrubbing DEI from public view — though not necessarily abandoning its practice. As they rebrand programs and hot-button acronyms, they’re reassessing decades-old anti-discrimination strategies and rewriting policies that once emphasized race and gender to prioritize inclusion for all.

In other words, the DEI label will be retired in favor of a new term that will cloak the same activities.

DEI has only been the acronym du jour since 2020,” Emerson said. “Regardless of what we call it, we’ve done a really poor job storytelling what this work is actually about.”

The rebranding is clearly being sparked by the “baggage” now associated with DEI, Emerson said. She pointed to conservative activist Christopher Rufo, who led the campaign to oust Harvard’s first Black president, Claudine Gay, framing her exit as “the beginning of the end for DEI in America’s institutions.”

“Companies with leaders that might be particularly supportive of DEI might also be the ones that are uniquely averse to drawing scrutiny,” Emerson said. “A lot of the companies that were vocal in the past have already been sued.”

“DEI” and all of its antecedents are part of the cultural Marxism that seeks to divide us into separate, warring groups, pitting the bourgeoisie (those who own the means of production) against the proletariat (working class), whose labor produces the goods, in a power struggle. It’s the “victims” of discrimination versus the “oppressors,” those who supposedly have an “unfair” advantage over someone who’s gay, female, black, hispanic, fat, trans, or some other characteristic that somehow puts them at a disadvantage. Men v. women. Gay v. straight. Black v. white. Fat v. fit. You get the idea.

As a man of faith, I can’t in good conscience write copy for “Pride” month celebrations or any other celebration of something that runs counter to God’s established order. DEI always posed a threat to my role, but thankfully I was never put in a position where I had to refuse an assignment (although I got close a couple of times).

It’s still a threat to my prospects, though, since most corporate roles I find list the support of “diversity, equity and inclusion” as part of the job description.

Death to DEI and anything else that favors one group over another.

Daily Broadside | A Recent Mailer Tells Me All I Need to Know About Immigration

We continue to be overrun by an invasion of foreigners who aren’t coming here because they want to be part of the Great American Experiment.

Aside from tax cuts and a tireless bloodlust for forever wars, there’s one thing Republicans of the bygone Bush era never tire of — the mass importing of destitute foreigners who neocons swear are nothing less than patriotic Americans at heart, just itching for a chance to make a meaningful contribution to a country they so dearly love.

It’s beyond childish. What we’ve learned over the course of decades, but particularly in recent months, is that a substantial portion, if not the vast majority of Central and South American migrants thrusting themselves into U.S. taxpayer care is that they view this country as little more than an apartment upgrade.

They’ve switched neighborhoods, not lifestyles.

The problem of immigration has been going on for decades but, with the current junta in power, it’s being exacerbated beyond what anyone would have dreamed. You may have noticed that neither the Democrats NOR THE REPUBLICANS have made any serious attempt at stanching the flow of illegals. Where are the bills to overhaul our immigration system? Where are the calls to immediately close our borders to any trespassers?

Their collaboration on illegal immigration is a perfect example of the Uniparty, which exists to keep its members in power.

With that in mind, take a look at the piece of mail I received this past week from Xfinity, the Internet provider who connects me to this blog. They want to get more of their customers to join their mobile services.

Notice anything about it that might present an issue for me?

I don’t speak Spanish. I mean, un poco, but only the bit I learned in seventh grade Spanish class, like “arroz con pollo.” Other than that, this bulk advertisement is mostly indecipherable to me. Fortunately for me, Xfinity included an English version of the advertisement on the other side.

Let me point out a couple of more things about this mailer, and then explain why I’m making this an issue. First, when I took the mailer out of the envelope, it was folded so that the Spanish language side was up.

Normally I get advertisements in English. If there’s another language, it’s treated as secondary, as a translation of the primary language, usually on the back. This was reversed.

At first I thought it was a mistake. But, no, it was intentional.

You know how I know? Because my name and address are printed on the Spanish language side of the advertisement. You know how else I know? Because the envelope in which the advertisement was delivered is also printed with a promo in Spanish on the envelope:

I also know that this was intentional because Xfinity cannot know who reads English and who reads Spanish and who reads both. That’s why Xfinity included both English and Spanish versions. It’s not like my name was accidently added to the “Spanish-speakers” mail file.

And it can’t be that Xfinity is just throwing thousands of mailers to the wind and hoping to catch some new customers. The fine print says that the offer is for, “Existing Xfinity customers with a plan that has been active more than 90 days only.”

Xfinity is clearly not assuming English as the primary language. So here’s my question: why did Xfinity choose to bulk mail an advertisement to who-knows-how-many customers that is clearly targeting Spanish-speaking people?

I can only think of three reasons:

  1. My region is now majority Central American and I’m a minority. That would be news to me but, given the open border over the last three years, unsurprising.
  2. Xfinity has gone woke and they are now prioritizing “brown and black bodies” over white ones, no matter the racial make up of my region. How racist of them.
  3. Spanish-speakers have more money to spend than I do.

Maybe it’s a combination of all three. Whatever the strategy, it underscores the changing demographics of the United States, and that’s why I’m calling your attention to it.

The United States was founded as an English-speaking nation. Even as we grew in size and population, we remained a largely European-immigrant, English-speaking country. When other immigrants arrived, they either had to know English or learn English to thrive in their new home. We didn’t cater to every newcomer and print foreign languages on our signs or our products. If you wanted to “be an American,” you learned the primary language of your adopted home.

But the cultural Marxists and anti-Americans don’t want us to be a homogenus nation that is bound together by a common language or creed. They tell us that being “American” is racist and full of white supremacy. When anyone has tried to pass legislation that would make English the official language of the United States, it is often opposed,

“as a veiled attempt to promote racism and bigotry, rather than an attempt to unify a country. They argue that English-only legislation creates a negative image of non-English speakers, and increases intolerance and hostility toward cultural diversity.”

Ah, yes. Cultural diversity, the Marxist trope that for us to be a moral force for good in this world, we have to be “diverse.” Nothing says unity so clearly as diversity does.

Efforts to make English the official language of the US have been going on for decades. As recently as March 2023, U.S. Senators Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and JD Vance (R-OH) introduced a bill to to establish English as the official language of the United States. The bill is intended:

To declare English as the official language of the United States, to establish a uniform English language rule for naturalization, and to avoid mis-constructions of the English language texts of the laws of the United States, pursuant to Congress’ powers to provide for the general welfare of the United States and to establish a uniform rule of naturalization under article I, section 8, of the Constitution.

But have you heard that such a bill was being considered? You haven’t?

You don’t say.

I guess Mitch McConnell is too busy keeping his pals in Ukraine swimming in cash, squashing true conservative candidates at the polls, and bankrupting the country to worry about a little ol’ thing like national unity.

Getting that Xfinity bill in the mail surprised me because it’s direct evidence that I’m being displaced. I have to flip the page to get a translation, not the immigrant, because it’s not written with me in mind. I’m secondary.

That’s the goal of progressives—and the fact that they’re succeeding makes me a little sad and a little angry.