You may have read in the news that a faculty member of the Gallaudet University in Washington DC has been placed on “administrative leave,” due to the fact that she signed a petition requesting referendum on the issue of gay marriage in Maryland.
Angela McCaskill is “Chief Diversity Officer” at Gallaudet University in Washington DC. She was at church one Sunday, and requested to sign the petition that would permit the voters of Maryland to vote on the issue of gay “marriage.” She signed the petition and says she did so because she favors democracy and allowing citizens to vote on such controversial issues, as opposed to having legislatures and courts force so-called “gay marriage” on the populace. (More HERE)
But the administrators at Gallaudet University consider her signing of the petition to be unacceptable. Apparently, as “Chief Diversity Officer,” they don’t consider her kind of diversity the right kind of diversity.
To be sure, it is refreshing and surprising to hear that a “diversity officer” would have signed a petition opposing Gay “marriage” and insist that gay marriage be brought to a vote, instead of merely being imposed. As most social conservatives know, and have experienced, the usual “diversity office” at a campus is anything but diverse in its views. And, that a diversity officer might actually understand that there more than one side to the issue of Gay “marriage” surprises not only social conservatives, but also (apparently) social leftists. In effect, the leadership at Gallaudet University sees Ms. McCaskill’s actions as incompatible with their notion of diversity, and are saying, in effect, “How could you!”
But merely expressing surprise is not usually enough for radicals on the left. Thus, they have placed her on “administrative leave.” Never mind all the usual calls for tolerance from the radicals, never mind the “free exchange of ideas” that they so often extol on college campuses. Never mind all that, according to them, Ms. McCaskill has to go.
The reaction well demonstrates that when leftist cultural radicals speak of “diversity,” they don’t mean it in any fair minded or straight forward definition of the word.
The word diversity comes from the Latin word diversus: di (two) + versa (turns or sides). Thus, the true meaning of the word “diversity” means “two sides.” Or by extension, “more than one side,” “more than one viewpoint” or just “different.”
But the cultural radicals mean no such thing. In their lexicon “diversity” means you have to accept anything they propose. But it does not that they should accept you, or that they should even consider the fact that you might be troubled that they propose anything, no matter how deviant the behavior has historically been seen to be. In their lexicon, being “open-minded” means that you agree with them. “Tolerance” is your obligation to agree with them, but not their obligation to accept you, or your deeply held Christian beliefs, no matter how ancient or how well attested.
And, in their form of diversity, tolerance and open-mindedness, if they can punish your non-compliance or even just your non-placet, they will do so with a sense of righteousness, and they will do so firmly and swiftly.
The central point is, when cultural radicals use these terms, they mean no such thing.
To be sure, I am not hereby articulating a position that diversity is an absolute quality or virtue. There are certain diversities to be celebrated and/or tolerate. But there are certain behaviors, which ought not be tolerated, illicit sexual union and Gay “marriage” among them.
The intent in this post is merely call the cultural radicals on their bluff. When they talk about diversity, they don’t really mean it. When they try to parade around in clothes of openness, tolerance, and diversity, they are misrepresenting themselves. When they celebrate “diversity” they don’t mean you, especially if you are a traditional Christian. Their ‘diversity” doesn’t include the Scriptures or the ancient Judeo-Christian tradition, or Natural Law. And don’t even think about mentioning the Catholic Church to them, you’re certain to be shown the door out of their “diverse” world.
To them these things are not something to celebrate or tolerate. They are something to abhor, to legally block, and for some of them, even something to destroy.
Just remember, when they speak of diversity they don’t mean it. And if they mean it all, it is only for them and their favored groups. But they certainly don’t mean it for you, especially if you are a traditional, Bible believing Christian. No, you are not part of the rainbow, you are not part of their tapestry, or their mosaic. You have no place at their table, no place in their celebration.
The views of diversity officer Angela McCaskill regarding (so called) “gay marriage,” are not clear. But one thing is clear, she has (wittingly or unwittingly) called the bluff of the diversity motif of the cultural radicals, and has incurred special wrath because she has done so.
To them she is “off message.” She actually took the word diversity to me what it says. How wrong was that! And now she is cast out of the “hallowed halls” the radicals think they own. She is proof that when cultural radicals speak of diversity they don’t mean you, they only mean themselves.
Disclaimer: I have chosen the words “cultural radicals” carefully. I am willing to admit that there are many who oppose the Church’s teaching on Biblical marriage who are far less radical, who are of good will, and may also be shocked at what happened to Angela McCaskill. There are some who are willing to allow the cultural debates of our time to be conducted in an open and honest way, and accept that varying groups, including Christians, have the rights of any citizens to engage in the political process, and to seek to influence the discussions in the on-going cultural shifts of the West.
But the radicals have no such room in their world for opposition or even discussion, and they want to silence any questioning of their agenda. They are growing in number, especially in university and government settings, and it is to them that I address the concerns of this blog.
16 Replies to “When Cultural Radicals speak of”diversity,”They mean no such thing.”
Diversity is the word chosen by cultural radicals to replace deviance, because it sounds righteous in the vacuous minds of the uninformed, uneducated and inexperienced. One would much rather be referred to as socially diverse than socially deviant. Truth to them is a sound bite not a reality.
Your blog post “Been in the Storm So Long” is inaccessable because it’s considered malicious content. Please help. More info here: http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?client=Firefox&hl=en-US&site=http://blog.adw.org/2012/08/been-in-the-storm-so-long-children-on-the-need-to-cultivate-serenity-in-the-midst-of-a-culture-war
Yes, the likely cause of the problem is that a third party added malicious code. Gosh though, that’s an old post, how did you stumble on this?
This is really an interesting blog as it focuses on the very important topic on Cultural Radicals .Thanks for share this knowledge.
Excellent points, Msgr. Pope. The hypocrisy of the cultural radicals in our society is blatant. The shocking attack perpetrated by a man who said he is “gay” on a Chinese-American grandmother and an African-American pregnant mom who came to her aid is exemplary of the escalation of hate crimes against those who believe differently. You can read more about that here
Pregnant African-American Woman Aids Chinese-American Grandmother Attacked for Believing in Traditional Marriage
Feels like the crumbling of yet another society as has so often happened before in history.
After several posts aimed at reinforcing the necessity of dialogue, this one goes pretty far in the opposite direction. Setting up a straw man argument against the “cultural radicals” will lead many to conclude that any call for diversity or tolerance is “radical” and therefore wrong. I did notice that you provided a small disclaimer at the end–but immediately after went back to generalizing about “the radicals”. If you want to make a case, I think it is best to use specific examples and stick to facts. If Gallaudet University is radical in your opinion because of its action here, so be it. But to extrapolate from that to a general excoriation of “those people” is dangerously inflammatory and can feed prejudice. I get the importance of trying to correct social trends and perceptions which seem to be rooted in bias (in this case the Gallaudet example), but I think the solution is more open dialogue, not equal-but-opposite bias.
Who expelled who? It was your crowd Daniel, they’re the one that threw her out. So much for dialogue from the radicals
I’ve never had any dealings with Gallaudet University. Your attempt to associate me with this situation allows you to disregard my point as absurd a priori–which allows you to avoid dialogue. That is my point…when we pigeon hole people we demean them and become further polarized.
I associate you with them because you defend them and because as a regular commentator here your articulate and frequently defend the position of the cutlural radicals. I am not unjust in any way in associating you with them, it has nothing to do with where you work. Ou are defending the indefensible here and if you want to call that a pidgeon hole then fine, sit in it all you want. But it is you who have called it that. As for your accusation that I am not interested in dialogue, what are you doing here Daniel? I could have easily pressed delete to your unfortunate defense of the indefensible. But here you are. Hmmm….not something the folks you are defending saw fit to offer to a member of their staff. If there is any apriori going on it was they themselves did. That’s a pretty important a-priori don’t you think. Why don’t you call them and ask for “dialogue” and see how far you get. it is you and those you support who are inflammatory. Also, did you read my disclaimer, or were you already tuned out by that point?
I never once defended what the university did…I made clear in my response that your comments on Gallaudet were fair game because they address a specific act–it was the leap from this to an unspecified group called “cultural radicals” and “those people” who are “growing in number” and infiltrating our government and universities which causes red flags. This kind of language stokes fear, and fear does not dialogue, it lashes out.
PS I also mentioned your disclaimer in my original comment.
Why are you afraid Daniel. If they are not “cultural radicals” what would you call them Daniel? Left wing? Democrats? Homosexuals? Give me another term . My attempt is too avoid over specifying them since I do not think any of the other labels fit or are fair. But this much is clear Daniel, they are not just isolated individuals. They are part of a growing movement of intolerant leaders set on radical cultural change. They are not tolerant and once in power have no intention for your precious dialogue. If you want to bury your head in the sand, have at it. But the Church has not been required to go to court against the radicals because they don’t exist. They do exist, it is a real movement and you can get all offended if you want but what they do needs to be brought to light and called what it is. You are perfectly willing to give offense in the pursuit of your self-proclaimed non provocative approach, but the fact is you are far less inclusive and interested in “dialogue” than you claim to be. You seem to have “room” for everyone but those who express orthodox Christianity. Physician heal yourself.
It is more accurate to say that *some* “cultural radicals” lack “diversity.” But there are others who live and work honorably to good and just ends.
Some say that some “pro-lifers” advocate for life while it is in the womb, then afterward, nothing. It is true that some find such comments bothersome or offensive. My disclaimer: I am a pro-life Catholic and also a liberal.
But it is also true that there is a spectrum of behavior and morality in which populations of all ideologies find themselves, as Msgr Pope suggests in his disclaimer. This is, after all, one news story. There are many news stories out there that serve to utilize one example to make a larger point than perhaps is really being made. I think this is one of them. Daniel is right to sniff out this post as more in keeping with politics, and less with dialogue and virtue.
Well again, cf, my disclaimer. Your charges against me are unjust. I did not create the issue or report it. It is they who acted unjustly and foolishly and if you want to call it politics I suspect you are projecting your own issues. I never once mentioned a candidate, a party or any such thing. I find politics tedious.
The invocation of a “spectrum” is simply a place to hide. There is a population in the US that aggressively and rudely demands that their choices are right and anyone that speaks out against their view point is accused of “hate speech”. It is right out of Brave New World.
It is possible to be Pro-Life and liberal easily. Okay, so what. Maybe you are not a cultural radical. But if you cannot see the extreme view and extreme method of enforcing this view on the rest of us you are truly hiding your head. Extreme conservative position are not better if they take the same path that any whisper differing from their view is evil, stupid silly etc then they are rude,uncivil and wrong headed. Just start a blog and use the term atheist in a somewhat negative way. You will be bombarded by arrogant people who tell you to stop believing in some fantasy book and think for yourself. That is not open dialog. That is rude and arrogant.
You and Daniel both take on your superior attitude of disdain and demand an open dialog. I would love an open dialog. I tried to oppose capital punishment at a Republican caucus. Big mistake. Rude people climbing over themselves to shout me down. Go to a Democratic caucus meeting in Iowa sometime and try and be opposed to homosexuals attempting to claim marriage as a right. If you make it out in one peace then we can talk about the fallacy of cultural radicals.
Angela McCaskill, I salute you.
Comments are closed.