Jason International

Christian Ex-Gay Ministry

Diversity

Diversity

Diversity – bereichernd oder Verwirrung stiftend?

Wikipedia schreibt hierzu:

"Diversität ist ein Konzept der Soziologie, das in der deutschen Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, analog zum Begriff Diversity im englischsprachigen Raum, für die Unterscheidung und Anerkennung von Gruppen- und individuellen Merkmalen benutzt wird. Häufig wird der Begriff Vielfalt anstelle von Diversität benutzt. Diversität von Personen – sofern auch rechtlich relevant – wird klassischerweise auf folgenden Ebenen betrachtet: Kultur (Ethnie), Alter, Geschlecht, sexuelle Orientierung, Behinderung, Religion (Weltanschauung).[1] Weniger ins Auge fallen eine große Zahl weiterer sozialisationsbedingter und kultureller Unterschiede wie Arbeitsstil, Wahrnehmungsmuster, Dialekt usw., die die Diversität einer Gruppe als ihre kulturelle Vielfalt weiter erhöhen und kontextabhängig ebenfalls der Aufmerksamkeit und ggf. der sozialen Anerkennung bedürfen.

Das Konzept Diversität hat seinen Ursprung in der Bürgerrechtsbewegung der USA, die gegen Rassismus gegenüber Schwarzen gekämpft hat. Diversität steht damit für die Herstellung von Chancengleichheit von Gruppen, die nach bestimmten Merkmalen benachteiligt werden.[3] Daraus entstand in den USA das Antidiskriminierungsgesetz und die Affirmative Actions zur Förderung benachteiligter Gruppen (Rasse, Geschlecht, Hautfarbe, nationale Herkunft, Alter, Behinderung oder Religion).

Seit dem Ende der 1990er Jahre wird das Konzept auch von der Europäischen Union als Leitbild verwendet. Seit 2006 sind in der deutschen Gesetzgebung die Aspekte der Vielfalt im Allgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgesetz berücksichtigt und schützen Personen aus diesen Kategorien vor Diskriminierung.

Das Diversitätsmanagement als eine Methode des betrieblichen Personalwesens zielt darauf ab, die Diversität der Mitarbeiter konstruktiv und gewinnbringend zu nutzen. Eine bekannte Vertreterin des Diversitätsmanagements in Deutschland ist die wirtschaftspolitische Initiative Charta der Vielfalt.

Verschiedene Autoren werfen die Frage auf, ob Gerechtigkeitsnormen die Handlungsmacht marginalisierter Gruppen und Gemeinschaften erweitern, oder ob durch sie bestehende Machtbeziehungen zwischen den Stiftern von Gerechtigkeit und denen, die als Empfangende konstituiert werden, gefestigt werden; zu nennen sind etwa Gayatri Spivak, Sarah Ahmed, Nikita Dhawan oder Davina Cooper.

(...)

Diversity Management (auch Managing Diversity) bzw. Vielfaltsmanagement ist Teil des Personalwesens (engl. Human-Resources-Managements)[1] und wird meist im Sinne von „soziale Vielfalt konstruktiv nutzen“ verwendet. Diversity Management toleriert nicht nur die individuelle Verschiedenheit (englisch diversity) der Mitarbeiter, sondern hebt diese im Sinne einer positiven Wertschätzung besonders hervor und versucht, sie für den Unternehmenserfolg nutzbar zu machen. Die Ziele von Diversity Management sind es, eine produktive Gesamtatmosphäre im Unternehmen zu erreichen, soziale Diskriminierungen von Minderheiten zu verhindern und die Chancengleichheit zu verbessern. Dabei steht aber nicht die Minderheit selbst im Fokus, sondern die Gesamtheit der Mitarbeiter in ihren Unterschieden und Gemeinsamkeiten. Bei den Unterschieden handelt es sich zum einen um die äußerlich wahrnehmbaren Unterschiede, von denen die wichtigsten Geschlecht, Ethnie, Alter und Behinderung sind, zum anderen um subjektive Unterschiede wie die sexuelle Orientierung, Religion und Lebensstil. Siehe dazu auch die Definition von Diversity.

(...)

Patricia Purtschert kritisiert, dass bei Diversity Management nicht Fragen der Gerechtigkeit, sondern Fragen der Gewinnmaximierung im Zentrum der Betrachtung stehen und die kritische Betrachtung nur auf der lokalen Ebene stattfindet und nicht die Organisationsstruktur als ganzes umfasst."




Was heißt das eigentlich - "Diversity"?

Es klingt ja erstmal wunderbar. "Verschiedenheit". Und mittlerweile bekennen sich viele Betriebe zu diesem Leitsatz der "Diversity".

Was heißt das nun, wenn man sich der "Diversity" verschreibt - wenn man sie im Betrieb akzeptiert?

Will man hiermit Menschen aus anderen Ländern unterstützen? Oder Männer und Frauen in gleicher Weise? Verschiedene Kulturen oder Religionen? Menschen mit langen oder kurzen Nasen?

Wenn man jedoch einen Blick auf die heutige Gesellschaft wirft - vor allem auch die Geschäftswelt - sieht man, dass das Wort "Diversity" vor allem in der Bedeutung verwendet wird, die eine völlige Akzeptanz von Homosexualität einschließt. Der Ausdruck klingt nicht aggressiv und wird oft als anderes Wort (eine Art "Code") für "Homosexualität" verwendet. So wird das, was man mit dem Wort "Diversity" eigentlich sagen will, geschickt verschleiert (wenn vielleicht die Absicht derjenigen, die das tun, nicht unbedingt schlecht sein muss. Manche mögen sich dessen auch gar nicht bewusst sein).

"Diversity" - wer würde das nicht sofort unterschreiben? Höchstens altmodische, radikale, verklemmte, oder engstirnige Menschen. Menschen voller Hass und Menschen mit wenig Hirn. Die Art von Menschen, die auch Hexen verbrennen würden (vergleiche auch die "Human Rights Campaign!). Alle anderen würden aber "Diversity" unterstützen.

Wenn man das Ganze aber anders - mit eindeutig homosexuellem Hintergrund - ausdrücken würde, ergäbe sich wohl eine andere Antwort.

"Diversity" steht also meist für alle möglichen Arten von Homosexualität - wie wir sie heute in der Gesellschaft vorfinden und wie sie sich in verschiedenster Art und Weise darstellt.

Eine Akzeptanz von "Diversity" heißt also meist nichts anderes als eine Akzeptanz von Homosexualität in all ihren Ausdrucksformen.

Dies sollte man also immer im Hinterkopf haben, wenn im Betrieb, in der Schule oder sonstwo "Diversity" propagiert wird.

Ein Beispiel unter vielen:

Als am 27. August 2005 zum ersten Mal britische Soldaten an einer Gay Pride Parade in Manchester teilnahmen, brachte dies zum Ausdruck, "dass die Armee Veränderung akzeptiert und sehr fortschrittlich und aufgeschlossen ist, was die Akzeptanz von Diversity betrifft, und damit ein höheres Level an Toleranz zeigt".

Das Problem dabei: im Gegensatz zur Nationalität etwa ist bei der Homosexualität - unabhängig von deren Ursachen - doch ein gewisses Maß an freier Entscheidung möglich (zumindest was das Ausleben der Neigungen betrifft). Man darf sich schon fragen, wie es so weit kommen konnte, dass sexuelle Vorlieben oder Orientierungen hier Einzug gehalten haben und Teil des "politisch korrektem" geworden sind.

(Quelle: ICN Ministries: http://www.icnministries.org/resources/video.htm)



Diversity = Geschlechtergerechtigkeit?

Der Begriff ´“Diversity“ wird ja mit allem Möglichen in Verbindung gebracht. In Deutschland bei sozialen Organisationen etwa gerne mit „Geschlechtergerechtigkeit“. Damit hat er aber nur sehr am Rande etwas zu tun. In den USA wird damit etwa vor allem die „Vielfalt“ geschlechtlichen Empfindens bezeichnet – also etwa homosexuell, bisexuell, transsexuell und was es sonst noch in dieser Richtung gibt. Weitere Aspekte wäre „Vielfalt“ im Sinne von „Multikulti“ – also eine Vielfalt der Völker und Nationen in einem Staatsgebiet.

Wenngleich diese „Vielfalt“ im Grunde ein neutraler Begriff ist, wird er in der Regel als etwas Positives, Fortschrittliches, Notwendiges bewertet – im Gegensatz zu traditionellen Strukturen (ohne dafür allerdings wesentliche Gründe anzuführen). In diesem Sinn wäre das Gegenteil von „Diversity“ bestenfalls die Einfalt oder das Rückständige und schlimmstenfalls im Sinne des Gutmenschentums das „Populistische“ (ist diesen Menschen klar, dass dieser Begriff von „Populus“ – Volk – kommt?).

Gehen wir also näher darauf ein: Ist diese „Vielfalt“ überhaupt so toll und empfehlenswert?

Wenn sich christliche (insbesondere katholische) Organisationen mit diesem Begriff (vor allem im Sinne der Vielfalt geschlechtlichen Empfindens) schmücken und damit zum Ausdruck bringen, dass es ihnen egal ist, wie ihre Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter ihr Privatleben führen, tun sie sich damit keinen Gefallen. Dann können sie genauso gut die Bezeichnung „christlich“ oder „katholisch“ ablegen. Wenn das Salz seinen Geschmack verliert, taugt es zu nichts mehr. Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter, deren eigenes Leben von den Lehren der Katholischen Kirche bzw. der Bibel abweicht, können ihre Organisation nicht mehr wirkungsvoll nach außen vertreten. Was ich nicht in mir habe, kann ich auch nicht weitergeben.

Wenn ich „Geschlechtergerechtigkeit“ zum Ausdruck bringen will, dann sollte ich das auch so nennen. Wer sie pauschal mit „Diversity“ benennt, verursacht damit Begriffsunklarheiten.

„Diversity“ im Sinne von „Multikulti“ hat sich bereits hinreichend erledigt: man muss nur in die USA schauen oder in die geschlossenen Gesellschaften von Migranten hier in Deutschland (selbst die, die schon Generationen hier leben!), um zu erkennen, dass dieses Experiment gescheitert ist.

Dann nehmen wir uns doch mal das Gegenteil vor.

Im christlichen Glauben gibt es nur eine Form des akzeptierten Zusammenlebens: das in einer monogamen, lebenslangen Ehe zwischen Mann und Frau. Die Norm hier ist also „Heterosexualität“ (auch wenn dieser Begriff ebenso wie „Homosexualität“ jüngeren Datums ist). Ja, einige Menschen haben – aus welche Gründen auch immer – gleichgeschlechtliche Neigungen. Damit haben sie aber noch keine eigenständige Identität, sondern sie sind eben Männer und Frauen mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen. Das Ausleben derselben lehnt der christliche Glaube ab. Allein die Tatsache, dass Menschen so empfinden, gibt ihnen noch lange keine moralische Rechtfertigung zum sexuellen Handeln. Würde man so argumentieren, müsste man diese Argumentation auch für alle anderen Bereiche ausdehnen – was zu absurden Ergebnissen führt. Es ist also gut und notwendig, hier einen Standard zu haben und nicht die eigenen Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter oder Ratsuchende zu christlich nicht vertretbarem Handeln zu verleiten, in dem man dieses als „Diversity“ gut heißt und sogar feiert.

„Geschlechtergerechtigkeit“ ist – wenn auch unter anderen Bezeichnungen – Bestandteil des christlichen Glaubens. Dieser allerdings sieht beide (mehr als zwei Geschlechter gibt es nicht!) Geschlechter als gleich viel wert an, nicht aber als dasselbe. Männer sind keine Frauen und umgekehrt. Beide haben unterschiedliche Rollen und Aufgaben – und das ist gut so und von Gott gewollt. Jesus selbst etwa hat alle gesellschaftlichen Traditionen gebrochen, in dem Er Frauen lehrte und in Seinem Jüngerkreis aufnahm. Er nahm sie aber bewusst nicht in den Kreis der Apostel und deren Nachfolger – die Priester und Bischöfe – auf. Weiterhin hat Er klar und deutlich den Standard aus Genesis bekräftigt – ein Mann und eine Frau, die eine lebenslange monogame Verbindung eingehen. Wenn Er etwas als Standard und damit als Norm und moralisch richtig bezeichnet, muss Er keine lange Liste von Dingen beifügen, die nicht vertretbar sind. Das ergibt sich von selbst. Wer sind wir, dass wir uns über den Sohn Gottes erheben?

Was die „Diversity“ oder „Vielfalt“ der verschiedenen Völker und Kulturen in einem Land betrifft: Es ist richtig, dass im Laufe der Jahrtausende viele Stämme und Völker über ein Staatsgebiet gezogen sind. Hieraus haben sich dann aber im Laufe der letzten Jahrtausende bzw. Jahrhunderte eigenständige Völker und Kulturen mit einer eigenen Geschichte, eigenen Traditionen, Charakteristika und Identität entwickelt. DAS ist Vielfalt! Es ist unsere Aufgabe und Pflicht, das Erbe unserer Vorfahren zu bewahren, zu pflegen und damit zu ehren. Wer dies nicht tut, hat irgendwann keine eigene Identität mehr. Wahre Vielfalt heißt die Unterschiedlichkeit der Völker wertzuschätzen und zu bewahren. Nein, das bedeutet nicht, dass ein Deutscher keine Nicht-Deutsche oder ein Weißer keine Farbige heiraten darf. Es bedeutet, dass wir im Großen das bewahren und beschützen, was wir als bewahrens- und schützenswert betrachten. Wer alle Grenzen aufmacht und alles vermischt, zerstört alles Gewachsene und hat am Ende keine Vielfalt, sondern Einfalt.


Das allgemein zelebrierte Konzept der „Diversity“ bzw. „Vielfalt“ ist somit grundsätzlich abzulehnen und zu bekämpfen bzw. mit dem Gewachsenen und Bewährten zu ersetzen.



"'Wir sind jetzt gezwungen, mit der herrschenden Meinung zu brechen'

(...)

Das christlich-abendländische Konzept, längst in Opposition, wird also vorerst wieder in kleinen Oasen freimütiger Treue gelebt werden, abseits der immer grotesker zur Schau gestellten „Diversity“. Der Wertewandel für alle wird zwar mit hochmütiger Härte demonstrativ durchgesetzt. Man staunt allerdings, dass eine Gesetzgebung in Gang kommt, für die kaum ein Bedürfnis ermittelt wurde. Wichtigeres bleibt liegen. Die extrem wenigen „Paare“, oft nicht stabil oder nur „sozial“ treu, die überhaupt eine „Verpartnerung“ zelebrierten, benötigen die völlige Gleichstellung in der Zivilehe wohl kaum. Die erdrückende Mehrheit im Parlament will also anscheinend gar kein Problem lösen, sondern eine Moralpredigt „an alle“ aussenden. Auch was Moral ist, das bestimmen wir!

Angeblich geht es da um „moderne“, berechtigte Interessen, aber nicht um moralische Leitbilder? Das kann auch deshalb nicht so ganz stimmen, wenn enthaltsame „Verlobung“ in der jetzt begünstigten Community so gut wie unmöglich war. Queer ist nämlich nicht normal: Im Christentum konnte der Konsens dem Vollzug vorausgehen, lange Zeit sogar gar nicht so selten. Denn es ging ja nicht um „Sex“, sondern um Ehe. Aber auch das Argument der „Keuschheit für alle“ zählt ganz offenkundig nichts mehr. Der Schaden tritt allerdings nicht zuerst bei der Kirche ein. Sie kann im stärkeren Kontrast zur postmodernen Lebenswelt, in der „alles geht“ (und dann doch nicht!), auch wieder mehr Profil gewinnen, ganz allmählich. Wie gesagt: Es kann hundert Jahre dauernd, bis der Wahn sich legt. Die Wahrheit über den Menschen, den Gott erschuf als Mann und Frau, wird sich aber als überraschend widerstandsfähig erweisen. So Gott will und wir leben.

Der Verfasser, Dr. iur. Franz Norbert Otterbeck, ist Rechtshistoriker und Wirtschaftsjurist. Siehe auch kathpedia: Franz Norbert Otterbeck."

(Quelle: http://www.kath.net/news/60096)


"Diversity Management - wem nützt das?

von Prof. Dr. Günter Buchholz
09. Mai 2013

(...) Es ist eine naive Selbsttäuschung oder ein Ausdruck von Einfalt zu meinen, mit diversity sei Vielfalt im Sinne von Heterogenität gemeint. Fragt man, was der Begriff wirklich - und das heißt praktisch - bedeutet, dann stößt man auf eine strategische sprachpolitische Täuschung.

Diversity

Es fällt auf, dass es immer mehr – meist amerikanische - Begriffe gibt, die entweder unübersetzbar sind (z. B. Gender Mainstreaming) oder auf deren Übersetzung – im Sinne von: Was genau ist damit gemeint? – bewusst verzichtet wird (z. B. doing gender), denn es ist sprachpolitisch gar nicht gewollt, dass hierüber Klarheit hergestellt wird.

(...)

Genauso liest sich übrigens über weite Strecken die Gender Studies-Literatur; sie ist fast nur für Eingeweihte gedacht.

Einer dieser Doppelsprech-Begriffe ist diversity oder Diversität oder Vielfalt (vgl. „Gender-Mainstreaming, Diversity, logischer Unsinn“). Gibt man den Diversity-Begriff bei Wikipedia ein, dann wird Folgendes mitgeteilt: Erstens: „Diversity (Soziologie), moderner Gegenbegriff zu Diskriminierung, um antidiskriminierende Maßnahmen argumentativ zu bündeln.“

Aha! Wir lernen hier nicht ohne Verblüffung, dass diversity zumindest in der deutsch-feministischen Soziologie nicht mit Vielfalt übersetzt wird, sondern als Gegenbegriff zu Diskriminierung. Wenn das richtig wäre, dann würde diversity Nicht-Diskriminierung bedeuten. Sie bedeutet aber tatsächlich Vielfalt im Sinne von Heterogenität (zum Beispiel einer Gruppe) als Gegenbegriff zu Homogenität. Die Frage, ob eine Gruppe homogen oder heterogen strukturiert ist, hat aber mit Diskriminierung überhaupt nichts zu tun.
(...)
Wie dem auch sei, die Frage ist hier, weshalb eine solch fragwürdige Behauptung ohne Beweisführung propagandistisch verbreitet wird. Welches Ziel wird damit verfolgt?


Kehren wir zum Wikipedia-Eintrag zurück, dann lesen wir:

„Diversität (Soziologie) ist ein Konzept, das in der deutschen Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, analog zum Begriff Diversity im englischsprachigen Raum für die Unterscheidung von Personenmerkmalen gebraucht wird. Häufig wird der Begriff Vielfalt anstelle von Diversität benutzt. Diversität von Personen wird in mehreren Dimensionen betrachtet: Kultur (Ethnie), Alter, Geschlecht, sexuelle Orientierung, Behinderung, Religion (Weltanschauung)“.

Das Konzept Diversität (Soziologie) hat seinen Ursprung in der Bürgerrechtsbewegung der USA, die gegen die Benachteiligung von Schwarzen gekämpft hat. Diversität steht damit für die Herstellung von Chancengleichheit von Gruppen, die nach bestimmten Merkmalen benachteiligt werden. Daraus entstand in den USA das Antidiskriminierungsgesetz und die Affirmative Actions zur Förderung benachteiligter Gruppen („Rasse“, Geschlecht, Hautfarbe, nationale Herkunft, Alter, Behinderung oder Religion).

Seit dem Ende der 1990er Jahre wird das Konzept auch von der Europäischen Union als Leitbild verwendet. Seit 2006 sind in der deutschen Gesetzgebung die Diversity Dimensionen im Allgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgesetz berücksichtigt und schützen Personen aus diesen Dimensionen vor Diskriminierung.

2006 wurde in Deutschland die Charta der Vielfalt gegründet, in der sich viele Unternehmen verpflichten, die Vielfalt der Menschen zu respektieren und zu fördern, wobei der Begriff Vielfalt stark erweitert wird und schlussendlich jeder Mensch mit seiner Einzigartigkeit respektiert werden soll.“

Wenn sich das so verhält, dann ist klar, dass die Verwendung des Begriffs diversity nicht auf irgendeine Analyse der deutschen Gesellschaft, sondern auf die der USA zurückgeht. Es handelt sich um eine Art von politischem Plagiat, das ohne weitere Bedenken nach Europa importiert worden ist, obwohl die soziohistorischen Bedingungen in Europa sich von denen der USA sehr deutlich unterscheiden (...) Aber es geht hier eben nicht um wissenschaftliche Differenzierungen, sondern um politische Interessen.

(...)

Geht es also bei der Anwendung des diversity-Begriffs in Deutschland also darum, in den Betrieben mittels Diversity Management mehrdimensional gemischte, angeblich leistungsstärkere Arbeitsgruppen durchzusetzen? Natürlich nicht. Warum sollte Feministinnen das denn etwas bedeuten? Wenn stärker heterogene Gruppen wirtschaftlicher wären, dann würden die Unternehmen selbst für die schleunigste Umsetzung sorgen; dafür sorgte das Profitmotiv sehr zuverlässig.

Worum es daher wirklich geht, das ist einzig und allein, mit der Pseudolegitimation der diversity Frauenförderung mittels Männerdiskriminierung zu betreiben, aber eben geschickt, ganz ohne den expliziten Gleichstellungsbegriff und unter Verwendung einer harmlos klingenden begrifflichen Maske, so dass die Unternehmen womöglich gar nicht merken, welche Trojanische Stute sie sich da in die Organisation geholt haben (vgl. hierzu: „Zusammenhang und Abgrenzung von Gender- und Diversity-Management“). Es heißt dort:

„Auch wenn wir für einen individuellen Zugang jeder Organisation zur Frage „Gender und Diversity: Wie stehen sie zueinander?“ plädieren, hat die letzte Variante für viele Organisationen Vorteile. Unter dem Dach von Diversity werden verschiedene Kategorien berücksichtigt, Gender kann dabei aber eine der wichtigsten sein. Sie kann den Ausgangspunkt für die Einführung eines Diversity-Managements markieren. So können Probleme in Bezug auf die Geschlechter-Gleichstellung Auslöser sein, dass die Thematik überhaupt erst Eingang findet in eine Unternehmung. Nicht zu unterschätzen ist aber auch der Türöffner-Effekt von Diversity-Management. Diversity oder Vielfalts-Management ist heute für jede Organisation relevant. Gender wird dann oft selbstverständlicher auf die Agenda einer Organisation gelangen.“

Es gibt noch eine weitere Frage. Wenn Frauenförderung als Gleichstellungspolitik sowieso schon umfassend betrieben wird, weshalb wird dann von „gender & diversity-policy“ gesprochen? Hierauf gibt es zwei Antworten:

Erstens eignen sich die Begriffe diversity und diversity management dazu, als „modernes“ Managementkonzept für den privaten Wirtschaftssektor angeboten zu werden, ohne dass dabei bemerkt wird, dass es dabei einseitig um Frauenprivilegierung geht; die Begriffe dienen als Tarn- und Täuschungsbegriffe.
Zweitens gibt es eine Dimension von Diversität, die von der bloßen Frauenprivilegierung nicht erfasst wird, nämlich die besondere Förderung von männlichen und (insbesondere) von weiblichen Homosexuellen. Die Betonung von diversity im Zusammenhang mit gender zielt dann nicht nur auf Frauen-, sondern speziell auf Lesbenbevorzugung.

Es gibt übrigens noch mehr Anwendungsmöglichkeiten für diesen Trick, z. B., indem man dasselbe Motiv unter der begrifflichen Maske des Qualitätsmanagements versteckt. Dazu wird der Begriff des Qualitätsmanagements sprachpolitisch neu definiert. Qualität hat danach das und vor allem nur noch das, was gender und diversity in sich einschließt. Diese begriffliche Neudefinition ist ein "dirty trick" oder eine Infamie, denn: Wer kann schon gegen Qualität sein? So schleust man Nicht-Qualität wie einen Virus in den Qualitätsbegriff selbst ein und so immunisiert man sich gegen eine mögliche Kritik. Darauf kann man leicht hereinfallen. Die Unternehmen sind gut beraten, nicht einfältig zu sein und sich seitens der Gleichstellungspolitik nicht täuschen und nicht veralbern zu lassen. Und das gilt selbstverständlich für Hochschulen ebenso."

(Quelle: https://www.cuncti.net/gesellschaft/421-diversity-management-wem-nuetzt-das)



"Exclusive: Here's The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally At Google
Kate Conger

Aug 6, 2017

In the memo, which is the personal opinion of a male Google employee and is titled "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber", the author argues that women are underrepresented in tech not because they face bias and discrimination in the workplace, but because of inherent psychological differences between men and women.

"We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism", he writes, going on to argue that Google's educational programs for young women may be misguided.

The post comes as Google battles a wage discrimination investigation by the US Department of Labour, which has found that Google routinely pays women less than men in comparable roles.

Gizmodo has reached out to Google for comment on the memo and how the company is addressing employee concerns regarding its content. We will update this article if we hear back.

The text of the post is reproduced in full below, with some minor formatting modifications. Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted.


Reply to public response and misrepresentation

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don't endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can't have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I've gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

TL:DR

Google's political bias has equated the freedom from offence with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
Background [1]

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it's a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.
Google's biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.


Left Biases

Compassion for the weak
Disparities are due to injustices
Humans are inherently cooperative
Change is good (unstable)
Open
Idealist


Right Biases

Respect for the strong/authority
Disparities are natural and just
Humans are inherently competitive
Change is dangerous (stable)
Closed
Pragmatic


Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google's left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I'll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that's required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.
Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]


At Google, we're regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognisant of this, but it's far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren't just socially constructed because:

They're universal across human cultures
They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
The underlying traits are highly heritable
They're exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

Note, I'm not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are "just." I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there's significant overlap between men and women, so you can't say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

Personality differences

Women, on average, have more:

Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there's overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women's issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.


Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that "greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men's and women's personality traits." Because as "society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider." We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.


Men's higher drive for status

We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap

Below I'll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women's representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it's still instructive to list them:

Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn't deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
Women on average are more cooperative
Allow those exhibiting cooperative behaviour to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there's more we can do. This doesn't mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn't necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what's been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
The male gender role is currently inflexible
Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more "feminine," then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.
Philosophically, I don't think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimising for Google — with Google's diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google's funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

The Harm of Google's biases

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
A high priority queue and special treatment for "diversity" candidates
Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for "diversity" candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
Reconsidering any set of people if it's not "diverse" enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivise illegal discrimination [6]

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We're told by senior leadership that what we're doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

Why we're blind

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the "God > humans > environment" hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren't on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what's being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google's left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we're using to justify highly politicized programs.


In addition to the Left's affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he's labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women's oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of "grass being greener on the other side"; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn't harbored the violent leftists protests that we're seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

Suggestions

I hope it's clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don't fit a certain ideology. I'm also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I'm advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:

De-moralize diversity.
As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the "victims."

Stop alienating conservatives.

Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.

Confront Google's biases.

I've mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.

Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women's representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
There's currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
I realise that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivise illegal discrimination.

Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.

De-emphasise empathy.

I've heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy — feeling another's pain — causes us to focus on anecdotes, favour individuals similar to us, and harbour other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

Prioritise intention.

Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offence and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn't backed by evidence.


Be open about the science of human nature.

Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

We haven't been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I'm not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what's said in the training).



[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google's Mountain View campus, I can't speak about other offices or countries.

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I'd be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by "tech", I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I've seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivise the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn't going to overthrow their "capitalist oppressors," the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the "white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy."

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.

[10] "The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men's problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak."
[11] Political correctness is defined as "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against," which makes it clear why it's a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians."

(Source: https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-circulating-internally-at-google/)



"Canada’s top court rules that biblical Christian views are not part of ‘diversity’

June 19, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – In a ruling that is sure to send shock waves through the nation, Canada’s Supreme Court ruled 7-2 against Trinity Western University’s (TWU) Law School. In effect, what the court declared is that universities must choose between biblical standards and accreditation. Put another way, the court ruled that Christianity and higher education are incompatible. I am not exaggerating in the least.

Here’s a brief summary of the case for those who are not familiar with it. Trinity Western is a Christian university that requires its students and faculty to live by basic Christian standards. This means that to be a student or faculty member in good standing, you can’t commit fornication or adultery, nor can you engage in homosexual relationships.

There’s nothing surprising with these requirements, and there are thousands of schools in North America with similar standards. These include Christian schools from K-12, Christian colleges, Bible schools, seminaries, and universities.

These standards have long been part of TWU’s mandatory covenant, which requires “that all students and faculty pursue a holy life ‘characterized by humility, self-sacrifice, mercy and justice, and mutual submission for the good of others.’ It requires members to abstain from using vulgar language, lying or cheating, stealing, using degrading materials such as pornography, and ‘sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.’”

Again, this is gospel 101, the basic requirements of Christian discipleship. And it is honorable that TWU seeks to live this out on its campus.

Unfortunately, when TWU sought to open its law school, it fell afoul of Canada’s LGBT activists and their allies. They argued that TWU was discriminating against LGBT students, because of which students graduating with a bona fide law degree should not be allowed to practice law in Canada.

There was a ray of hope for TWU when a regional court ruled in its favor. But now, “In a pair of 7-2 rulings, the majority of justices found the law societies of British Columbia and Ontario have the power to refuse accreditation based on Trinity Western University's so-called community covenant.”

Or, to paraphrase, the Supreme Court ruled that if a Christian law school wants accreditation, it must abandon biblical values. How else can this be interpreted?

“The majority judgment said the covenant would deter LGBT students from attending the proposed law school, and those who did attend would be at risk of significant harm.”

Significant harm? If so, why? Because of biblical teaching. Because of Christian values. This the locus of the battle. This is the point of conflict.

Parse it however you like, but this is the hardcore truth.

“[The judgment] found the public interest of the law profession gives it the right to promote equality by ensuring equal access, support diversity within the bar and prevent harm to LGBT students.”

In other words, “diversity” according to the LGBT lexicon. Diversity meaning “the LGBT way or the highway.” Diversity meaning, “all views are welcome other than biblical Christian views.”

That’s why we’ve been raising our voices for so many years. That’s why we’ve been warning. That’s why we’ve said that those who came out the closet want to put us into the closet. That’s why we’ve said that LGBT activism was never simply about “tolerance.” It was about the silencing of competing views.

And if it could happen in Canada, it could happen in America. (For the skeptics and mockers, give me one good reason why this could not happen here. And note that TWU was not some tiny school hidden in a corner. It has “40 undergraduate programs and 17 graduate programs.”)


But I can say this to my friends and colleagues and fellow-educators and communicators here in America: We either use our liberties or lose them. We either stand fast and stand tall and stand strong, or we cower in a corner. We either do what’s right today, or we apologize to our children tomorrow.
Honestly, I don’t know where TWU goes from here. And I don’t know how the believers in Canada will respond.
It’s time to push back.

What will you do?
ONLY 8 days"

(Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/canadas-top-court-rules-that-biblical-christian-views-are-not-part-of-diver)



"Kids learn about ‘sexual diversity’ in twisted video promoting LGBT ‘pride’


June 5, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Gay “pride” is a “celebration of sexual diversity,” media personality Jessi Cruickshank tells young kids in a children’s TV show-styled video produced by the taxpayer-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

Surrounded by rainbow-shaped and colored balloons, Cruickshank asks two boys and two girls who look to be about seven what they think of gay “marriage” and if they think it would be “cool to have two moms.”

“Gay pride” means “like, where all the gay people, transgender, lesbian, bisexual people gather up and celebrate,” one little girl says at the beginning of the video. She counts those words off on her fingers as she says them, and it’s unclear if she knows what all of them mean.

“I just think it’s [gay ‘marriage] normal marriage,” one little boy says.

Cruickshank, who waves a rainbow LGBT flag throughout the video and dons a rainbow boa at the end, tells the children about different “gay celebrities.” (The only ones the kids could name were Ellen Degeneres and Lady Gaga.)

“Jodie Foster is a woman, and she made me question my sexuality when I was a child because I liked her so much,” Cruickshank explains.

“And she was nude in the film Nell. Not that I remember watching it several times as a child,” she adds sarcastically.

“As a mom of young kids, I’d be outraged if any adult told my 8 year old daughter about their childhood fantasies...and how they played Jodie Foster’s nude movie scenes on repeat. In any other context, parents would be rightly outraged,” Katy Faust, a children’s rights activist who was raised by two lesbians, told LifeSiteNews. “But, because to goal is to promote ‘pride’ we supposed to deem the children in this video as ‘enlightened’ for listening to and answering questions on adult sexualty. In reality they are being exploited.”

Cruickshank praised the children for being “allies” of the gay community and encouraged them to strive to become gay icons.

“A gay icon is someone who’s revered by the gay community,” she says in the video.

“I’m an ally. Maybe I could be an icon,” one of the boys says.

“Everyone should grow up and aspire to be a gay icon,” Cruickshank responds.

“That’s what pride is all about,” says one of the girls. When asked what she thought of gay “marriage,” that girl said her aunt is gay and she wonders if she’ll be the flower girl at her “wedding.”
“When you find out your auntie is gonna marry a woman, and your number one concern is if you’re gonna be the flower girl, you have your priorities straight,” Cruickshank says approvingly.
The kids had mixed reactions when asked what they thought it would be like to have “two dads,” saying a lot of it would depend on their personalities.

“I dare the makers of this film to re-shoot the video,” suggested Faust. Instead they should ask the kids, “do you think it would be cool to have no dad?”

“The response would go from ‘yes!’ to ‘that would be terrible,’” she said. “Because for most kids, it is.”

“If you doubt it, just ask any kid who lost their dad to divorce, abandonment, donor-conception or death,” she added. “Having ‘two moms’ or ‘two dads’ always means losing one parent that the child longs for, and has a right to. And that's an injustice.”

The one part of the video during which a child gave an age-appropriate answer is when Cruickshank asks the youngsters if they know what it means to “come out of the closet.”

The little girl innocently answers, “When you come out of the closet, it means, like, when you’re playing hide-and-seek and you’re hiding in the closet and then someone finds you, and then you come out of the closet and you have to be ‘it.’”

“Makes sense,” Cruickshank smirks, looking into the camera.

The video is full of bright colors, the children’s faces, and peppy music. Without the audio, it looks very much like any other program targeted toward kids.

“This is sick. To use young children to push the gay agenda is monstrous and manipulative,” Dan Gainor, Vice President of Business and Culture, told LifeSiteNews. “That this appeared on public media makes it even worse. Then to tell children that your fondness for a star made you question your sexuality is further bizarre.”

Teaching children to love people who are same-sex attracted does not mean “using them as ideological props in videos,” Faust concluded.

Cruickshank posted on Facebook that responses to the video had been positive. However, “others are angry and/or ‘praying for me,’” she wrote. But “I believe in education and tolerance and celebration of diversity.”

In another video timed alongside media coverage of the royal wedding, Cruickshank talks to the same group of children about divorce, who appear to be very familiar with it.

Cruickshank is the mother of twin boys, who are toddlers.
LGBT activists have declared June “Pride Month,” during which there are highly-sexualized marches celebrating homosexuality and transgenderism. March organizers now tout children as a key part of these parades. The grand marshal of an upcoming parade in Orange County, California, is a “gender creative” 11-year-old."

(Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/kids-learn-about-lesbian-fantasies-sexual-diversity-in-twisted-video-promot)



"Catholic prof under fire at Providence College for opposing ‘diversity’ agenda

anthony esolen, brian shanley

PROVIDENCE, Rhode Island, November 3, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – A powerful minority of left-wing students at small, still somewhat more than nominally Catholic Providence College are calling for the sacking of prominent Catholic author and literature professor Anthony Esolen for criticizing what his editor at Crisis Magazine called “the Totalitarian Diversity Cult.”

Dr. Esolen, who has published articles at LifeSiteNews, is the author of 16 books and has another due next year titled Out of the Ashes: Rebuilding American Culture. But he has provoked an irate response from campus radicals after criticizing a certain strain of diversity politics as detrimental to the true purpose of a university, in two articles for Crisis Magazine.

The backlash has yielded him a public scolding from the university president and led him to obtain a lawyer.

After an angry public protest of 60 students led by an activist with a bullhorn, the students met the university president.

The president, Fr. Brian Shanley, then released a letter to all faculty, staff, and students in which he spoke of “academic freedom,” but largely focused on lambasting Esolen for alleged opposition to “diversity” and lack of charity.

The letter, as first reported by author and commentator Rod Dreher at The American Conservative, stated in part:

… when one of our professors writes an article accusing Providence College of having “Succumbed to the Totalitarian Diversity Cult,” he is protected by academic freedom and freedom of speech. But it must be understood that he speaks only for himself. He certainly does not speak for me, my administration, and for many others at Providence College who understand and value diversity in a very different sense from him.

Universities are places where ideas are supposed to be brought into conflict and questioned, so let us robustly debate the meaning of “diversity.” But we must also remember that words have an impact on those who hear or read them. When a professor questions the value of diversity, the impact on many students, faculty, and staff of color is to feel that their presence is not valued and that they are not welcome at Providence College. I have heard from many students about the pain that this causes. When student activists are described as “narcissists,” they understandably feel demeaned and dismissed. We need to be able to disagree with each other’s ideas without attaching labels to them or imputing motives that we cannot know.

At the same time that we value freedom in the pursuit of truth, let us value even more our fundamental imperative on a Catholic campus: to be charitable to one another. We may deeply disagree on any number of topics, but we should do so in such a way that respects those with whom we disagree.

Our Catholic mission at Providence College calls us to embrace people from diverse backgrounds and cultures as a mirror of the universal Church and to seek the unity of that Body in the universal love of Christ. Pope Francis has likened this communion to the weaving of a blanket, “woven with patience and perseverance, one which gradually draws together stitches to make a more extensive and rich cover.” He reminds us as well that what we seek is not “unanimity, but true unity in the richness of diversity.” Finally, Francis reminds us that “plurality of thought and individuality reflect the manifold wisdom of God when we draw nearer to truth with intellectual honesty and rigor, when we draw near to goodness, when we draw near to beauty, in such a way that everyone can be a gift for the benefit of others.” Amen.

Then a petition followed from the university’s Black Studies department, spread among the faculty, charging Esolen with “racist, xenophobic, misogynist, homophobic, and religiously chauvinist statements.”

Esolen teaches in Providence’s Western Civilization program, which has come under sharp attack from campus ideologues who say it lacks “diversity.”

But, Esolen told LifeSiteNews, “How can young people study other civilizations when they don’t even know their own? Most of my freshmen now, for example, have almost no knowledge of any English literature before 1900. What the students describe as a program of comparative civilizations would quickly degenerate into current politics.”

Esolen says that various professors in the social sciences and elsewhere have been “after the Western civilization courses” for 20 years. “But they are all about politics. It doesn’t matter whether it is the politics of the Left or the Right.” Esolen argues that politics has taken the place of God for these faculty, whether they are aware of it or not. “When that happens, any behavior can be justified as long as it is done in the name of your particular ideology.”

Esolen’s articles were provoked by attacks on several Catholic faculty colleagues from students or professors inspired by the “diversity” spirit. Esolen says this is part of an overall campaign to remove Providence’s Catholic content and spirit. Several Catholic professors were the target of “bias reports” from students, but Esolen believes that “anti-Catholic” professors encouraged the attacks.

He hopes to defend his views in a public talk titled “Christ and the Meaning of Cultural Diversity.” He told LifeSiteNews that “Catholics especially, but all Christians, have been practicing diversity by sending missionaries around the world” for 2,000 years.

“The diversity being promoted at Providence is ironic, and self-refuting. I mean, how can you defend diversity by calling for the firing of someone who disagrees with you about what diversity means?”

Commented Adam Cassandra of the Cardinal Newman Society: “Providence College is really fortunate to count Anthony Esolen among its staff. It’s sad to see the administration and faculty throwing him under the bus and trying to run him off for defending the Catholic faith and excellent scholarly study.”

(Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/providence-college-rebukes-professor-after-students-protest-his-lack-o)



"Canadian sailor leaks his Navy unit’s mandatory ‘diversity’ training. And it’s nuts.

Dec. 7, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - A couple of months ago, I wrote a column detailing the story of a Christian sailor in the Royal Canadian Navy who narrowly avoided having to participate in the Navy’s celebration of Gay Pride week. The celebration of an ideology firmly opposed to traditional Christianity, I pointed out, was another way of forcing conscientious Christians out of the Armed Forces. Since that story ran, I’ve received a number of emails and messages from Christians throughout the Canadian military, all telling me that the secular progressive takeover has become increasingly intrusive, and increasingly mandatory.

Last week, I received another email from a Canadian sailor, this time giving details of his unit's mandatory diversity training, which includes the introduction of the idea of “Positive Spaces,” which are similar to “safe spaces,” but involve the mandatory affirmation of lifestyles that many Christians might oppose on principle.

The email read as follows:

On Wednesday, 30 November 2016, my naval unit within CFB Halifax held a mandatory "professional development" day, which mostly comprised of half-baked seminars on the need for diversity in the workforce, harassment training, and ethics and values of [the] Department of National Defence. My entire unit was present, including Command, which was composed of roughly 300 military personnel and civilian employees. As part of our "professional development" and training, CFB Halifax sanctioned an hour lecture on the newest breakthroughs ascertained in the study of gender fluidity and transgender rights.

As you may recall, the Royal Canadian Navy officially endorsed the LGBTQ movement in May with what is now known as "The RCN's summer of Pride.” While the most publicized portion of that endorsement was the Navy's determination to march in the Halifax Pride parade in uniform, and when it raised the Pride flag across the formation (including across the fleet), it also involved the set up of the Positive Space Initiative designed to bring awareness and mandatory training to sailors and employees on "inappropriate" behaviours, and on how to foster a "positive" (vice "safe" space, which was so 2015) workplace environment. Therefrom, the seminar on gender fluidity theory and LGBTQ rights arose, which has alarmingly become a staple in "professional development" days for CFB Halifax.

For an hour, we were required to listen to a transgendered employee preach on the progress made by the LGBTQ movement, on the cisnormative culture which ostensibly plagues society, and the fluidity of gender. The lecturer had the audacity to claim that the Positive Space Initiative was meant to foster a healthy and diverse workplace for all views, yet ironically declared that any opposition to the new gender (un)reality would be labelled as hate and improper conduct.


Sadly, I have to report that many in the room by the end of the presentation were giving a standing ovation. However, I did observe a few disgruntled sailors, who were all mainly part of the old guard more concerned with the actual mission (the purpose) of the Navy. On the other hand, the majority by the end insisted that such seminars become more common, because, to them, it displayed the "courage" of the transgendered employee fighting for equality. Ultimately, leadership hopes that the seminar will serve as a model to spread to other military units and services (i.e., Army and Air Force) across Canada in the months ahead…

I wanted to post the above statement publicly, but the current mindset of the Brass within the Navy would be to have me punished for speaking against such unrealities. While a Christian may nominally serve in the Navy (for now at least), it is heavily frowned upon to actually practice as one and speak about truth and faith. Thus, I had to use all means of self-control to refrain from walking out in the middle of the [seminar] this week, especially since my Commanding Officer was [one] of those who enthusiastically endorsed the brave new (in)doctrine(ation). All I wanted at that moment was to go back to my workplace and focus on the real mission at hand. Instead, I was taught the virtues of Tom becoming Tina, and the evil prejudices of my cisnormative ways.

Accompanying this email was a copy of the PowerPoint presented to the sailors and officer, titled “The CFB Halifax Positive Space Initiative.” This training—and this initiative—are necessary, according to the presenter, because “Members of the LGBTQ+ community face specific and unique challenges in the workplace where heteronormative attitudes continue to exist.”

The presentation focused largely on dispelling the dangerous idea of “heteronormativity,” which the presenter defined as “the belief or assumption that people fall into distinct and complementary genders (male and female) with natural roles in life. It assumes that heterosexuality is the norm, and sexual relations are most (or only) fitting between people of opposite sexes.” Gender, the presenter iterated, is “a social construct.” Heteronormativity must be combatted in the Royal Canadian Navy because all people are “vulnerable to the internalization of these assumptions and bias which are so pervasive in our society. This includes racism, sexism, classism etc.” For example, the presentation noted:

Heteronormativity (aka Heterosexism) and binarism are linked to:

Homophobia: Fear, hatred, repulsion or social aversion of persons who are or are assumed to be LGBTQ.

Biphobia: Fear, hatred, repulsion or social aversion to persons who are or are assumed to be bisexual.

Transphobia: Fear, hatred, repulsion or social aversion of person who are or are assumed to be transgender or gender non-conforming.


To help the attendees of this training course along in understanding this new “gender is a social construct” ideology, the presenter featured a slide depicting “The Genderbread Person,” which was ironically a cookie-cutter human-shaped gingerbread person with a diagram laying out how sexual orientation, biological sex, and gender expression are all separate things with no obvious connection to one another—unless, of course, you subscribe to the phobia-ridden and dangerous ideology of heteronormativity.

Keep in mind, here, that there is no scientific evidence to back the radical claims of the transgender activists. And yet, this ideology is being ramrodded into every public institution that activists can gain access too. This is the crux of University of Toronto professor Jordan B. Peterson’s current war against political correctness: a small cabal of activists with extreme and unsubstantiated views are successfully hijacking what was once an ongoing conversation by labeling all disagreement as “hate speech” and imposing speech codes through the sorts of diversity trainings that sailors on a Canadian Naval Base were recently subjected to.

These activists claim to be working to further inclusion and tolerance, but they have no wish to include competing points of view and will not tolerate dissent. That is why the emails and messages I receive are so often anonymous, or are sent by people who request anonymity if I publicize the information they send—because they fear being punished for expressing what was once a noncontroversial and common point of view."

(Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/canadian-navy-units-mandatory-diversity-training-revealed.-and-its-insane)




"MY 2011 WARNING ABOUT LGBT ACTIVISM


Posted May 02, 2016 by Michael L. Brown

Are you shocked by the radical success of LGBT activism in recent years? I hate to say it, but I told you it was coming, clearly and in detail.

Here’s what I wrote in A Queer Thing Happened to America back in 2011. (In fact, much of this was written years earlier, before the book reached its final form in the beginning of 2011).

I stated there that: “civil rights” for some means “limited rights” for others, and that by specific design. As stated explicitly in a teacher’s lesson aid published by the Gay and Lesbian Educators [GALE] of British Columbia: “We must dishonour the prevailing belief that heterosexuality is the only acceptable orientation even though that would mean dishonouring the religious beliefs of Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.” All this is part of the gay agenda.

Does this surprise you? If so, bear in mind that these are not predictions. They are statements of fact, a recap of what has already taken place in America and what is currently taking place around the world. Even our vocabulary is being affected, as the gay agenda has produced these new definitions and concepts:

From here on, embracing diversity refers to embracing all kinds of sexual orientation, (homo)sexual expression, and gender identification but rejects every kind of religious or moral conviction that does not embrace these orientations, expressions, and identifications.
From here on, tolerance refers to the complete acceptance of LGBT lifestyles and ideology – in the family, in the work place, in education, in media, in religion – while at the same time refusing to tolerate any view that is contrary.
From here on, inclusion refers to working with, supporting, sponsoring, and encouraging gay events, gay goals while at the same time systematically refusing to work with and excluding anyone who is not in harmony with these events and goals.
From here on, hate refers to any attitude, thought, or word that differs with the gay agenda, while gays are virtually exempt from the charge of hate speech – no matter how vile and incendiary the rhetoric – since they are always the (perceived) victims and never the victimizers.


And how does this activist, gay agenda work itself out in everyday life? Much of this is already taking place throughout the country.

Children in elementary schools will be exposed to the rightness and complete normality of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgender expression – witness highly-praised academic books such as The Queering of Elementary Education – and opposing views will be branded as dangerous and homophobic, to be silenced and excluded from the classroom.
Middle schools, high schools, and colleges will go out of their way to encourage both the celebration of homosexuality and deep solidarity with gay activism – witness the “Annual Day of Silence” in our schools in recognition of “the oppression and persecution” of LGBT people and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Students’ Bill of Educational Rights in our universities, not to mention Queer Study Programs and the celebration of “Gaypril.”
The federal and state governments will legalize same-sex marriages – as has already been done in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa – along with, currently, ten countries worldwide, including Canada and Spain in the same week in 2005 – meaning that all heterosexuals must accept the legality of these marriages and that anyone refusing to do so could be prosecuted for discriminatory behavior.
Corporate America will embrace every aspect of non-heterosexuality (including bisexuality, transgender, and beyond) – calling for the dismissal of those who refuse to follow suit – and religious groups will no longer be allowed to view homosexual practice as immoral, branding such opposition as “hate speech.”

In the last four decades, major changes have taken place in: 1) the public’s perception of homosexuality and same-sex relationships; 2) the educational system’s embrace of homosexuality; 3) legislative decisions recognizing gays and lesbians as a distinct group of people within our society, equivalent to other ethnic groups; 4) the media’s portrayal of LGBT people; and 5) corporate America’s welcoming of what was once considered unacceptable behavior. Is this simply one big coincidence? Did all this happen by chance? Don’t these very results – which barely tell the story – give evidence to a clearly defined gay agenda?

Well, just in case you’re not 100% sure, a leading gay activist has helped remove all doubt. Speaking shortly after the 2006 elections, Matt Foreman, then the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, had this to say: “You want to know the state of our movement on November 10, 2006? We are strong, unbowed, unbeaten, vibrant, energized and ready to kick some butt.”

And what exactly does this mean? “The agenda and vision that we must proudly articulate is that yes, indeed, we intend to change society.”

Or, in the words of gay leader (and former seminary professor) Dr. Mel White, “It is time for a campaign of relentless nonviolent resistance that will convince our adversaries to do justice at last. They have assumed that we are infinitely patient or too comfortable to call for revolution. For their sake, and for the sake of the nation, we must prove them wrong.”


So, the cat is out of the bag and the covert agenda is becoming overt, backed by a movement that proclaims itself “strong, unbowed, unbeaten, vibrant, energized and ready to kick some butt.” It is nothing less than a gay revolution – and it is coming to a school or court or business or house of worship near you.

America, are you ready?

That’s what I wrote back in 2011. Do I have your ear now?"

(Source: https://askdrbrown.org/library/my-2011-warning-about-lgbt-activism)


"AS PREDICTED, HERE COME THE GAY BULLIES


Posted Mar 15, 2016 by Michael L. Brown

For more than a decade, I’ve been warning that those who came out of the closet – meaning, gay activists – want to put conservative Christians in the closet.

I’ve been saying that, in the LGBT activist lexicon, “tolerance” means the intolerance of all views but their own, “diversity” means their way or the highway, and “inclusive” means the exclusion of all opposing opinions and values.

Day by day, we are watching all this unfold before our eyes.

In the UK, Pink News reports that, “Scotland is training a small army of LGBT-friendly police officers to stamp out hate crime.”

This “small army” has been tasked with encouraging victims of “hate crimes” to report those crimes to the police, since such crimes are allegedly under-reported.

The problem is that, in the UK, preachers simply reading the Scriptures on a street corner have been charged with LGBT “hate crimes.”

On at least one occasion, a preacher was charged with a hate crime because a lesbian listener simply felt discriminated against. (Thankfully, the case was thrown out and compensation of about $4,000 was paid out due to the preacher’s arrest and 11-hour, jail cell detainment.)

What will happen now with this “small army” on the lookout for such “crimes”?

Some years ago, I began to write about “the diversity police,” using the term metaphorically. Today, it is no longer a metaphor.

Yet there’s more. There will be increasing scrutiny in Scottish schools as well.

As explained by Fergus McMillan, Chief Executive of LGBT Youth Scotland, “We are currently working with a range of partners, including Equality Network, to increase the reporting of homophobic, biphobic and transphobic hate crimes and incidents and improve the support available to those targeted.”

Presumably, if a little girl objected to a confused little boy sharing her bathroom, she would be guilty of a “transphobic hate crime.”

John Knox must be turning over in his grave.

Back here in America, the Insider Higher Ed website reported on March 10 that, “In a letter sent to the National Collegiate Athletic Association on Wednesday, more than 80 lesbian, gay and transgender organizations urged the NCAA to ‘divest from all religious-based institutions’ that discriminate against transgender students.”

In other words, if a religious-based institution of higher education cannot support transgender activism on its campus – because of its explicit religious convictions – then the NCAA must boycott that schools.

Talk about intolerance and bullying!

So, if a religious-based university like Wheaton or Oral Roberts or Brigham Young was not willing to admit a biological male as a female, thereby allowing him to room with women, use the women’s locker rooms and bathrooms, play on the women’s sports teams, and join women’s collegiate groups, that school would be guilty of transgender “discrimination” and the NCAA should boycott them.

Once again, in the world of gay activism, “inclusion” is a one-way street, to be enforced by bullying and boycotting.

Over in Australia, a concerned mother wrote to our ministry:

“I listen and read your articles here in Australia and wanted to alert you to what's happening here. The government has initiated a program:

“They want to make it compulsory to be taught in all schools. There is information in there to teach transgender kids to bind breasts and tuck genitals. Doctors have warned this is very dangerous for kids and could even be fatal.

“Even worse, some large Pentecostal preachers reviewed it and said it's not that bad as some other Christian leaders have warned us about.”

Some of the resources on the “Safe School” website include, “All of Us,” described as, “A ground-breaking teaching resource that supports gender diversity, sexual diversity and intersex topics.” And, “Guide to Supporting a Student to Affirm or Transition Gender Identity at School,” described as, “A step by step guide for schools supporting transgender and gender diverse students who want to affirm their gender identity at school - suitable for both primary and secondary schools.”

The document itself explains that it “includes people who identify as women, men or as neither male nor female. The terms people use to describe their gender identity may include transgender, gender non-binary or agender.”

And this educational “resource” could become mandatory in children’s schools in Australia, just the latest example of the war on gender.

In my book Outlasting the Gay Revolution, I warned that gay activists would overplay their hand, stating that those who were once bullied would become the bullies and that the LGBT war on gender distinctions and natural marriage would destroy itself, since it goes against the very fabric of human society.

Little by little – no, quite rapidly and aggressively – we are seeing this come to pass in front of our eyes. Unfortunately, many conservative Christians are still sleeping while others, like the proverbial frog boiling in water, are spiritually dull, having become accustomed to our world being turned upside down.
Now is the time to wake up to reality and say, “Not in my school, not on my campus, not in my city.”

We can take a stand for what is right while loving those who oppose us.

And if we are unable to turn the tide just yet, no one is stopping us from swimming against it.

As Malcom Muggeridge once stated, “Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream.”

Don’t be a dead fish!"

(Source: https://askdrbrown.org/library/predicted-here-come-gay-bullies)