Would mandatory pre-school diversity experiences put an end to police violence and thus an end to black rioting? The question is absurd, yet that seems to be the point of a recent opinion piece, Please, no more Baltimores (Avery August and Lisa Mishii, The Detroit News, May 14, 2015, p. 2B). August is a professor of immunology, Mishii is a professor of "human resource studies." Both are "Public Voices Fellows" at Cornell University.
August and Mishii do not use the phrase "mandatory pre-school diversity experiences" in their tract, but they ask,
Would exposure to people of diverse backgrounds at a younger age lead us toward a society where police violence wouldn't exist?
"Police violence" is, of course, the ubiquitous talking point in just about all Leftist commentary about the riots that have been breaking out since August of last year. It is political propaganda intended to instill in us the notions that every instance of rioting was triggered by actual police misconduct, and that ongoing police misconduct has been a primary source of resentment and righteous anger in black neighborhoods. The phrase is repeated over and over. That is how propaganda works. You hear it again and again. It becomes part of your thoughts, without you knowing why. People say "diversity is our strength" not because they've really thought about it, but because they've heard it repeated 10 or 20 thousand times already.
When the diversity movement went public back in 1987 it was aimed primarily at college students. By 1996 Leftist professors were trying to get diversity training into middle schools. Today it has been insinuated into elementary schools. So when writers advocate "exposure to people of diverse backgrounds at a younger age", what could they possibly be talking about if not pre-school? If, after all those socially engineered diversity encounters over the last 25 years, we still suffer from "lack of exposure to others," then why do August and Nishii think super-early diversity would work?
They actually offer an answer. It is somehow as with our immune systems. "Exposure to others" at a very early age would be kind of like exposing children to peanuts at an early age so they do not develop peanut allergies later in life. They write:
Exposing our children to the range of our diverse cultures early in their development could lead to the development of tolerance. Early positive exposure may be a powerful antidote to later interracial tension.The basic reasoning seems to be: Early diversity experience would lead to tolerance. Police officers who have internalized this tolerance would not see black suspects as "other," but rather as elements of the same large social body. Thus, black suspects would not be mistreated. Thus, there would be no riots.
My main objection is this: The diversity people haven't been right about anything yet, so why should American white people give them the opportunity to utterly deform the psyches of our little children for the sake of theories so whacked, they put theories of right-wing crackpots like Alex Jones to shame?
Even if the ideas of August and Nishii worked somewhat as intended, I would still object. Recognizing others as "other" is important for survival. Some white people who have been brainwashed into thinking that black people are no more likely to be bad than white people have ended up being raped, tortured and murdered. The fact is, the black population contains a much larger percentage of bad people than the white population. White people need to know that. We do not need to be "immunized" against that thought.
The issues go way beyond mere personal safety. I do want white children brought up to be polite to and generally respectful of other people, including non-white people. But I also want white children to have a strong, unapologetic sense of their own identity as American white people.
These days we seem to suffer from some kind of intellectual auto-immune disorder. Instead of respecting dissent and the part it can play in a nation's political conversations, too many white people, usually people of some intelligence with a usual level of good-will, will attack it. The dynamic is something like this:
White guy: The main factors in the riots are black criminality, black impulsiveness, deliberate "organization," official encouragement and excuses.I exaggerate for the sake of humor, but the point remains.
Some other white guy: OMG, that is soooo racist!! How could you be such a horrible, racist person!! You fiend, you fiend!! I hate you! Have you no decency!!
After reading the article for the first time, I began to think that Professor August had to be black. His reasoning is lame. If "lack of exposure to others" is the reason "why the legal progress of civil rights seems to have brought us nothing but mistrust," then what exactly was the point of all the diversity training and propaganda we've been subjected to over the last 25 years?
I'm sure that, compared to the average American, August is noticeably more intelligent. So why is his logic so flaccid? My guess is that, as a black professor, he does not get the kind of feedback he needs to keep his thinking sharp. Politically correct white liberal professors put him in a sort of intellectual bubble. They are too timid to challenge him. They are too inhibited to come out and say, "Umm, that's really stupid!" Most people who spend a lot of time thinking and writing need to hear that once in a while. This is guesswork. The real reason might be something else entirely.
I cannot prevent "another Baltimore." Anytime the Lefties want one, they can
get one. All they have to do is wait for some poorly
educated (and probably uneducable) young black male to commit some crime or
act in a blatantly suspicious way and then get in a big fight with a cop and
keep fighting until the cop has only two options: Shoot or die. We know the
routine. We can't stop it.
Copyright © 2015
To link to this article, try copying and pasting:
<a href="http://m3peeps.org/05/mpsd.htm">Mandatory Pre-school Diversity Exposure?</a>
[Go to m3peeps.org main index page]