Australia be warned, the diversity dictates that nearly led to Donald Trump's assassination are coming for your institutions too

John Mac Ghlionn I SkyNews.com.au I 21 July 2024 I 4 min read

That DEI initiatives nearly cost the former US president his life should come as no surprise to those who have watched identity politics chip away at the principles of meritocracy for decades, writes John Mac Ghlionn. ?

A Republican congressman recently labelled the US Secret Service chief a "diversity" hire, blaming the push to recruit more female agents for security lapses in the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.

Tim Burchett targeted Kimberly Cheatle, who has been advocating for more non-white and female agents.

Now, she's facing resignation calls as the director of the Secret Service.

And with good reason.

The agency aims to have women constitute 30 per cent of its agents by 2030.

Critics argue female agents are less effective than their male counterparts.

Some have pointed to viral footage showing a female agent struggling to holster her weapon after the Pennsylvania shooting on Saturday.

Others claim that the female agents in Trump's security detail are too short to effectively shield the 6ft 3in-tall (191cm) former president.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) nearly cost Donald Trump his life.

This should come as no surprise.

After all, in recent years, DEI has proliferated across American society, all in the name of "fairness" and representation.

Yet beneath these promises of progressivism lies a troubling reality: DEI has evolved into a destructive force not just in policy, but in the foundational principles of major institutions.

The education system, for instance, has been fundamentally altered.

That’s because DEI has redefined success away from meritocracy and towards identity politics.

Once renowned for intellectual rigor and academic excellence, US universities now prioritise diversity quotas over qualifications and achievement.

Standards are compromised, and scholarships are increasingly awarded based on demographic checkboxes rather than scholarly achievements.

This shift not only diminishes the quality of education but also undermines the credibility of academic credentials, leaving graduates ill-equipped for the rigors of global competition.

What happens in academia does not stay in academia.

These people graduate and enter the real world, bringing their baggage and lack of talent with them.

Administrators, charged with the neutral administration of educational services and programs, have instead wielded DEI ideology as a tool to enforce political criteria on faculty, students, and staff.

As the anti-DEI crusader Christopher Rufo has pointed out, the pursuit of truth, once the cornerstone of university life, has been subordinated to the dogmas of ideological activism.

This perversion of purpose extends beyond mere administrative or curricular concerns; wholesale adoption of DEI principles compromises the fundamental mission of the university and erodes the essential compact between the citizen and the state.

In fact, the transformation of universities into hubs of ideological activism—funded by American taxpayers—represents a severe breach of democratic principles.?

The medical profession, charged with the vital responsibility of preserving lives, has also succumbed to the pressures of DEI. Affirmative action in medical school admissions, mandated to meet diversity quotas, risks placing underqualified individuals in positions where the stakes are life and death.

The imperative of diversity over competence in medical practice compromises patient care and safety, contradicting the very principles of professionalism and ethical responsibility upon which medical ethics are founded.

In a recent memorandum published, Xavier Becerra, Joe Biden’s health and human services secretary, unveiled an audacious plan to address “racial inequities” within the organ-transplant sector.

This program, aimed at 90 of America’s 257 transplant centers, introduces a contentious points-based system to assess hospital performance.

Under this framework, hospitals earn one point for each successful kidney transplant.

Additionally, due to a “health equity” adjustment, centers receive 1.2 points for transplants involving patients from low-income backgrounds.

Sadly, but somewhat inevitably, DEI has found its way into US courtrooms.

As the New York Post recently noted, the American Bar Association has mandated DEI training, and many law schools already have integrated DEI curricula en masse.

This top-down imposition extends further, obligating licensed attorneys in states like New York to undergo biannual diversity, equity, and elimination of bias training.

Ostensibly intended to equip legal professionals with tools to navigate race-related issues, these courses often fail in practical application and instead foster a climate where conformity to ideological tenets outweighs legal acumen and ethical considerations.

The infusion of DEI principles into courtrooms poses a direct threat to the foundational principles of justice.

The legal system traditionally rests on the pillars of impartiality, evidence-based reasoning, and adherence to the rule of law.

DEI, however, introduces subjective and arbitrary criteria into judicial decision-making, undermining the principles of fairness and equal treatment under the law.

When legal outcomes are influenced more by the identities of the parties involved than by the merits of their arguments, justice becomes a casualty of ideological conformity.

Innocent people—those who have not committed any crimes—are destined to face injustice.

For Australian readers, the cautionary tale of DEI's impact in America should serve as a sobering warning.

The adage "when the US sneezes, the world catches a cold" rings particularly true in this context.

The contagion of DEI, originating in the US, has spread across the Western world, including Australia, like a destructive oil spill, seeping into every aspect of society.

Its corrosive effects extend beyond educational institutions and courtrooms; they threaten the very fabric of a society built on principles of meritocracy, where individuals are judged based on their abilities and achievements rather than on arbitrary characteristics.

In the pursuit of rectifying historical inequalities, DEI initiatives risk diluting the standards of excellence and integrity that are fundamental to the functioning of a just society.

A society built on merit ensures that individuals rise based on their talents and efforts, fostering innovation, competence, and societal progress.

However, the imposition of DEI principles prioritizes demographic representation over competence, fostering a culture of mediocrity and diminishing respect for genuine achievement.

As Australia and other nations confront the ripple effects of DEI, citizens must do everything in their power to resist this particularly pernicious form of social engineering.

John Mac Ghlionn is a researcher and essayist who writes on psychology and social relations. He has a keen interest in social dysfunction and media manipulation. ?