Introduction

One of the developing trends is for companies, governments, colleges, and professional guilds to require their people to sign DEI statements (diversity, equity, inclusion). The legal origin of the DEI industry is the 1971 Supreme Court case of Griggs v Duke Power Company,[1] which created “disparate impact” law.  Frank Resartus summarizes:

“Disparate impact law allows a plaintiff in an employment discrimination case to prevail without evidence of discriminatory intent, simply by showing that a job requirement or hiring procedure has a disparate impact on the plaintiff’s protected class. Put in today’s parlance, disparate impact law assumes systemic racism. In theory, a disparate impact claim does not automatically prevail, for the law allows businesses to defend a practice by proving ‘business necessity.’ But that is a costly and uncertain prospect. For businesses, the practical import of disparate impact is clear: Any failure to achieve proportionate outcomes among groups is an invitation to a lawsuit. To avoid disparate impact claims, employers must monitor the race, ethnicity, sex, and sexual orientation of their employees to keep numbers up for those in protected classes. To be sure, overt discrimination remains technically unlawful, which partly explains why employers shroud their practices in the latest rhetoric of inclusion recommended by a permanent staff of “diversity” professionals. Nevertheless, achieving diversity means discriminating on the basis of race and ethnicity—the very practice Americans thought they had outlawed with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.”[2]

Frank Resartus

Two parties stand behind DEI statements. The first is the business that doesn’t want to be sued for disparate impact. The second is the activists who use this Supreme Court case to bludgeon society into a new shape. The goal is ideological cleansing. The people permitted to work in the elite métier are coerced to claim agreement on the party line.

The wokelogues mean something very different by diversity, equity, and inclusion than Western Civilization has historically meant. Diversity doesn’t mean different groups cordially pursue their various activities. It means that the problem with the United States is that whites amount to 60% of the population, heterosexuals amount to 99% of the population, and Christian morality framed the nation from the beginning. Diversity, therefore, is a rancor that tries to nullify the pesky problem that Christian adherence to the Nature of Things leads to prosperity.

Equity doesn’t mean equality of opportunity. It means equality of outcome. In short, it means unequal treatment where “victim” groups are treated better than others. Equity, therefore, is an ideological tool to reshape society into the image of Marx.

Inclusion doesn’t mean everyone is included. It means LGBTQIA+ people are included, but Christians are not. People who don’t sign the DEI statement are not included either. Inclusion, therefore, is a punitive action against those who live by the old definition of inclusion rather than the new.

DEI statements ignore the fact that human nature and malleable human tendencies can’t be changed by bureaucratic fiat.[3] When we see institutions grow compliant at a certain time, one after another, from fad to fad, we laugh at the elixir that promises to overturn human nature and usher in Utopian justice.[4] We see the difficulty of preserving words and phrases from mutability, wishing we could embalm the truth of God and secure it from graft and blight. Yet we don’t have the individual power to clear the world at once from vanity, vice, and deception.

What is a Christian to do when a DEI statement is forced upon him with the ultimatum of signing it or getting the axe? How can a Christian strive for faithfulness? There are two main options.

First, you could sign the statement as an act of subterfuge

Some people fight the dragon and others make peace with it. Christians are decidedly the former. The dragon is a deceiver and a liar, which means even the best words in a DEI statement are disingenuous. But it is the layering of the old and new in palimpsests of language. The old rough-and-tumble concept of inclusion, for example, has only been partially erased. A Christian employee can sign the DEI statement and simultaneously use it to disengage the principles of the moral revolution from the institution.

Imagine a Christian—let’s call him Woodrow—is required to call Herman by his new transgender name of Hermina. Not wanting to play along with Herman’s cockney imagination, Woodrow refuses. Herman files an HR complaint against Woodrow accusing him of violence against his identity. The HR person, let’s call her Maude, presents the DEI statement Woodrow signed. Maude lectures Woodrow about his commitment to inclusion and diversity. What is Woodrow to do?

One option is to remind the company to apply its statement about diversity, equity, and inclusion to everyone. If the company is committed to diversity, that means people of different backgrounds are free to work. If they are committed to equity, that means equal standards apply to all individuals and groups. If they are committed to inclusion, that means people of every background and identity can work. It sounds like, Woodrow patiently explains to Maude, you are applying unequal standards to ensure preferential outcomes for LGBTQAI+ individuals.

What has Woodrow done? He has equitably applied the company policy. If the employee in rebellion against God can use the DEI statement to their advantage, so can a Christian use it from the other side. Maybe at the next DEI training, Woodrow can encourage like-minded co-workers to ask some pointed questions, “Does this company apply the same standards to everyone, everywhere, regardless of race, sex, gender, or religion?” “How many DEI administrators does the company employ and what is their average salary?” “How much profit have these administrators added to the company?” “What if the company eliminated the DEI department and spread their salary among the lowest-paid employees at the company? Wouldn’t that help the employees more?”

Somebody needs to speak up at these meetings, preferably with a cohort of others. People are afraid to voice objections because the momentum seems to be in one direction. They are afraid of being crushed by the violence of contradictory emotions. But, as vast and inexorable as the DEI racket appears, it is vulnerable. Hypocrisy prevents DEI initiatives from regular action. A little cheerful bravery and a perfectly worded question will help draw out the silent majority that agrees. Comrades are more likely to reveal themselves when they see that safety comes from inside the group of sanity rather than outside.

Now, this sort of tactic only goes so far. But many HR departments aren’t willing to go toe to toe with an articulate, informed, well-liked, and joyful employee. A Christian in this situation should complete his job joyfully and competently. He should be the hardest-working and most diligent employee on the team. He needs to put pressure on the company, which means he works in such a way that he is fired because he lived as a faithful Christian and refused to play along with the scruples of an unknown darkness. If Woodrow is fired, it is for righteousness (1 Pet. 3:14) rather than wickedness (1 Pet. 3:17).  

“But even if you should suffer for righteousness sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in our hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy."

1 Peter 3:14 - 15a

Second, you could refuse to sign the statement and be fired

Many Christians simply can’t agree with the muck and muddle of the DEI statement. They know such things only feign agreement with the pluralism of the liberal order. It is a slope that has forgotten there is such a thing as level. The DEI statement is not a Christian-friendly respecter of persons. It undermines Christianity in the name of the ugly gods and creates a world where the clock is always striking thirteen. The DEI statement is a sweeping commitment to give preferential and compensatory treatment to preferred groups to create equal results. It mobilizes “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” in an intellectually irresponsible way. The agenda is to fast-track those who celebrate LBGTQAI+ and remove those who are not allies.

In higher education, the hiring pattern now is for candidates to submit a written statement with their application explaining their personal commitment and advocacy of diversity, equity, and inclusion. If the statement doesn’t demonstrate an adequate track record of enthusiastically supporting LGBTQAI+, the candidate isn’t considered for the job. It's only a matter of time before this practice spreads to the hiring protocol of other industries.[5]

If Omri puts a gun to your head and asks you to tell a lie, some Christians will say, “Fine. Jesus is still in the grave. There’s your lie.” Other Christians will appeal to the ninth commandment and refuse to lie. Both are bearing witness to the truth of Christ. Some Christians can’t put their name to the DEI statement that clumsily cuts through justice with a bad knife. It would violate their conscience, even if they signed it with the intent to carry out a strategy of righteous subversion. It is understandable if a Christian can’t sign the statement out of conviction. They don’t want to play along with the hocus-pocus, the forced speech, and the discrimination of the DEI industry.

So, what are they to do? If they are unwilling to sign the statement and uproot the new moral code from within, there are few options left. Once fired, Christians should consider building a better business rather than finding someone else to work for. This is easier said than done and it starts long before the firing. It takes planning, preparation, and proficiency. It also requires a vision for institution building. Start here. And here. Pass this vision on to your children. Perhaps the best place to start is to confess that entrepreneurship is not an unattainable goal.

Entrepreneurship is in permanent danger of being misjudged. The entrepreneur is not any more a risk taker than others. He only takes different risks that render different rewards. There is good risk and bad risk. What Christians call bad risk is decreasing responsibility for sanctifying the world. What Christians call good risk is increasing the share of responsibility to sanctify the world. So, the Christian standard is this: It's not a bad risk if it is good enough to make God’s world better.

[1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/424/

[2] https://www.firstthings.com/article/2022/05/defeating-the-equity-regime

[3] Steven Pinker’s 2002 book The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, delivered a savage blow to the notion that the policies of the centralized government can change how human nature functions.

[4] There is an entire corpus of empirical literature on ethnic diversity and social trust within a nation. Charles Murray defines social trust as “humans’ confidence in the good faith and good will of those around them. This is the kind of confidence that allows neighbors to leave the front door unlocked when leaving home for the afternoon, encourages people to do good deeds in the expectation that eventually they will be directly or indirectly reciprocated, and enables sellers to extend credit to buyers. Writ large, social trust is indispensable to an environment in which communities, capitalist economies, and democracy itself can flourish.” In 2020 the Annual Review of Political Science published “Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust.” This meta-analysis looked at 87 separate studies. Each and every study discovered a negative correlation between ethnic diversity and social trust. If this is true on a national level, it can also be true at your company, which explains why companies with DEI statements erode the social trust of their employees. https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/diversity-and-its-limits/  

[5] https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-diversity-policing-fails-science-equality-equity-education-texas-tech-job-candidates-interview-dei-pronouns-11675722169