What do our children’s schools mean to accomplish when they set a day aside to celebrate “diversity?” More importantly, why is it that I need to ask? Because it has come to my attention recently that to some diversity may not mean what you and I think it means. And if that’s true, I think it’s important we know it now, don’t you? Otherwise, we may not understand things like why our children are called to attend or participate in their school’s “Diversity Day” only to have it cancelled.
Recently, at the Viroqua High School in Wisconsin such a cancellation just occurred that left many of the children there confused. Here are the facts as I understand them. Apparently the high school schedules a Diversity Day to occur twice each school year. For their next event they had enlisted a number of “diverse” speakers. The La Crosse Tribune reported that to be included were a Hmong human, a Jewish human, a Muslim human, an American Indian human, an African American human, a Latino human, a Buddhist human, a physically impaired human, an impoverished human and a two gay humans (who we are informed live together as a couple). According to one teacher on the Diversity Day planning committee, these people were chosen to “introduce students to minorities and people with alternative lifestyles. … Our students are … going to come into contact with people of different backgrounds. And we feel it would be real helpful for them in a nice safe place, like a high school, to have contact and be able to dispel some of the stereotypes.” What could be wrong with that? I mean, how much more tolerant of diversity sounding can you get than that? So far, so good, right? Well, if you think so, you’re wrong Bungi Brain. Here’s what happened next.
Someone took exception with the fact that the speakers’ roster did not include anyone who would be willing to present a Christian ex-gay point of view, and requested that the committee remedy this “oversight.” Then came what I think is the funny part. When the committee took up the suggestion for consideration, the gay couple informed them that, if a Christian ex-gay was allowed to speak, it would make them feel “uncomfortable.” So uncomfortable, in fact, that they would refuse to participate in the event. How intolerant of diversity, not to mention blatantly hypocritical, is that? What happened to “dispelling stereotypes?” But hold on. It gets better. In response to their anticipated discomfort, the committee decided to cancel the entire Diversity Day program. In a masterstroke of understatement, one committee member described the confusion this caused by saying, “It’s ironic, because we’re trying to be tolerant and at the same time we might be accused of being intolerant.” No kidding.
Decades ago, our nation enacted civil rights laws that implicitly defined diversity when they prohibited discrimination on the basis of four protected categories: race, color, religion and national origin. Then later, the gay rights movement came along and lobbied heavily to obtain the same legal protections for their “lifestyle.” To accomplish this they leaned heavily on a theory (that only they seem to endorse) that their lifestyle was the product of a genetic predisposition over which they had no more choice than was the case with a person’s race or color. And, notwithstanding the absence of any scientific proof to validate that theory, they prevailed politically.
Just protecting their lifestyle from discrimination alone was not enough, however. They also wanted to silence those who opposed their lifestyle. The thorn in their side was the existence of ex-gays, who theoretically should not exist if, in fact, being gay is genetic; an argument they know is often taken up by the Christian community. So, working on the philosophy that the best defense is an offense, some gay activists took up a plan to shut Christians and ex-gays up, in part, by enacting hate speech laws, making it a crime to speak ill of anyone who was of the gay lifestyle. Interestingly, however, they did not want those same limitations they were busy imposing upon the free speech of others to apply to themselves. They wanted an exemption that would enable them to remain free to criticize and condemn those who, because of their religious beliefs or otherwise, are offended by the gay lifestyle: e.g. Christians and/or ex-gays.
That appears to have been the case at Viroqua High School. Advocating their gay form of lifestyle to teenage students is cool both for the gay couple and the high school committee, so long as no opposing views by a Christian ex-gay are to be presented. But, when a person with such views merely asks to be considered, the gay couple, feeling “uncomfortable”, not only refuses to participate, but ultimately causes the entire program to be cancelled. Thus, they effectively silence, not only who they perceive to be their enemy, but everybody else who would have spoken that day as well -- even the poor Hmong guy who don’t you think probably had to travel some distance to get to Wisconsin? All of this to silence a Christian with an opposing point of view? How sad is that?
So much for exposing students to a truly unbiased view of diversity in order to “dispel stereotypes,” I guess. If we are to hear from the goose, don’t you think we should also hear from the gander? You never know. One might be surprised to hear a view that expresses a love for all people. A message that even though we are all flawed in one way or another, rather than sitting in judgment of the flaws of others, we are summoned to higher calling: to love and forgive each other as we each hope to be loved and forgiven by the one above. If lifestyle is really to be a protected category alongside race, color, religion and national origin, doesn’t true diversity suggest we be willing to allow such ideas to be presented? To me, that’s diversity. But, I guess others see it differently.
© 2006 Clifford C. Nichols, Esq.
Cliff Nichols is an attorney practicing criminal defense/entertainment law in Santa Monica, California. He may be contacted regarding this editorial at either (310) 917-1083, cliff@cliffnicholslaw.com or www.cliffnicholslaw.com and you may join his blog at www.thedailystand.com