- The Washington Times - Thursday, May 15, 2003

It’s Asian Pacific American Month at the National Cathedral School for Girls in Washington, D.C. I don’t know what that means, exactly, but the banner proclaiming this diversity of the month is pretty big, so I’m thinking it must be very important. Not that every kind of diversity isn’t always important. Over in Somerset, Maryland, the elementary school recently celebrated “Share Our Diversity Night,” which reminds us why it is that our Founding Minters thought to label American currency with the inspirational motto, E Unus Pluribum — Out of One, Many.

Wait a minute — that’s not what it says on a nickel? Forgive my muddle. My ears are still ringing from the medley of diverse songs (Trinidad and Newfoundland’s greatest hits) shared on Somerset’s Diversity Night. This luscious little town, by the way, is a veritable Olympic village of million-dollar homes flying United Nations flags. Correction: In the interest of reportorial accuracy, it must be said that only one Somerset home flies the robin’s-egg blue banner recalling the grand snits of Dominique de Villepin in the Security Council and the head seats of Libya and Iraq on the human rights commission and disarmament conference. The one flag on that one house, however, makes quite a, well, diverse impression, particularly if you don’t know that a pair of golden retrievers lives there.

Accuracy and diversity have been much in the news lately, following revelations that top editors at the New York Times for years ignored increasingly emphatic warnings about the veracity of national reporter Jayson Blair: accuracy, because Mr. Blair was incapable of it (said to be a bad thing); diversity, because in today’s climate of multi-culture-consciousness, Mr. Blair, a black man, exemplified it (said to be a good thing). As the old grey lady seeks to out, out this new spot by airing all the dirty linen that’s fit to print—7,000-plus words on Sunday about Mr. Blair’s fabrications — the more interesting questions emerging from the scandal may pertain less to accuracy and more to diversity.

Why? Because there lurks the very, very, strong suspicion that Mr. Blair — whose articles required 50-plus after-publication corrections “before” the discovery of his final-straw plagiarism — was retained and even selected for plum beats to serve the cause of diversity. In the color-blinded eyes of the New York Times’ top dogs, publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., executive editor Howell Raines and managing editor Gerald Boyd, diversity appears to have come before accuracy.

This is not only bad for the newspaper, but it is bad for all the other minority reporters who might or might not have been recruited for this same cause (and these include, in diversity-speak, non-white men and all women). Regardless of excellence or mediocrity, they must all go home at night wondering whether the boss chose them for the color of their skin or the content of their clip file. And that stinks. But it’s an old story, and it never has a happy ending. Manipulating human beings to realize any utopian dream, from Marxism to diversity, is always a nightmare on some level. Treating people as symbols, as colors, as trophies, is ultimately dehumanizing — literally. As we examine through the revelations of the Blair case the fanaticism of journalism’s drive to “diversify,” this should become obvious.

Which should lead to some tough questions: Exactly what is “diversity,” and why has it become an end in itself? Newsweek’s Seth Mnookin offers a revealing definition in lamenting that the New York Times hasn’t immediately declared it “will continue its commitment to making the paper’s reporters better reflect the world they write about.” Is that what this is about — reporters who better reflect the world they write about? Such a state of journalistic affairs would relegate middle-aged white women to the Hillary beat, black men to cover the NBA and Secretary of State Colin Powell, Asian reporters to SARS — and they could all flip for multiracial Tiger Woods. And what in diversity’s name was Jayson Blair (black) doing writing about former POW Jessica Lynch’s family (white), anyway? In a word, such “diversity” is absurd. It is also deeply depressing. For in its weddedness to identity politics, it presumes that human beings are incapable of reaching across race and sex — a fallacy belied, thankfully, by centuries of more expansive hearts and imaginations.

Mr. Mnookin also writes of the media’s “responsibility to reflect different viewpoints, to report on varied cultures, to shine lights in places we might not tread ourselves.” That sounds more like a decent day’s work, although I wonder if diversifiers realize it doesn’t require anything special — not race, not sex — besides shoe leather. And I wonder if they could ever accept “different viewpoints” — conservatives, say — in their newsrooms. There’s the kind of diversity — none of this skin-deep stuff — that has always been too rich for their blood.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide