Martin Brown Is Absolutely Correct: To Achieve Real Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, “DEI” Must Die

by J. Kennerly Davis

Martin Brown, a senior aide to Governor Glenn Youngkin, created quite a stir when he told an audience at the Virginia Military Institute that “DEI is dead.” Democrats in politics and the media jumped on the remark, and the Governor’s support of Brown, to assert that the Youngkin administration is hostile to policies and programs that foster diversity, equity, and inclusion. The partisan criticism is baseless. Martin Brown is correct. For Virginia to effectively foster diversity, equity, and inclusion, DEI must die.  

Every system of government is based upon an idea, a fundamental concept for its organization and operation, a proposition. Most times, the idea has been small, shabby, uninspiring, and authoritarian. Ultimate authority has been held by a ruling class. The rights of individuals have been understood to be nothing more than malleable artifacts, with their scope and substance and tenure entirely dependent upon the changeable determinations and dispensations of the ruling class.

But sometimes, the idea for a system of government is a grand one, exceptional, inspiring, revolutionary. The idea of America is a grand idea: the revolutionary proposition that all persons are created equal, endowed by their Creator with inherent dignity and unalienable rights; the revolutionary proposition that the only rightful purpose of government, the legitimizing purpose, is to recognize, respect, and protect the shared sacred humanity, inherent dignity, and natural rights of the people;  the revolutionary proposition that the people shall rule, and each shall be able to think and speak and worship and associate freely; the revolutionary proposition that a richly diverse people can form a strongly united nation, e pluribus unum. That is a grand idea!

For more than a hundred years, the regressive authoritarians who wrongly style themselves “progressive” have worked to undermine the grand idea of America and replace it with their own very small idea: the counterrevolutionary proposition that an elitist ruling class of credentialed technocrats, infallible “experts,” should exercise unrestrained administrative power to define the rights, allocate the resources, and direct the affairs of the supposedly unenlightened masses under their paternalistic supervision.

Behind the façade supported by the progressive myth of the infallible expert technocrat lies a vast army of second-rate policy makers and bumbling bureaucrats who have inflicted on the nation one policy disaster after another: lost wars, financial crises, crime-ridden cities, failing schools, crony-corrupted regulatory schemes, and unsustainable benefit programs.  

The progressive concept of government could never displace the grand idea of America as a result of any fair and honest consideration of the alternatives. That is precisely why progressives work so hard to erase our understanding of America’s founding principles. That is why they wage their frenzied campaign to silence and discredit anyone who questions any of their positions or any part of their agenda. And that is why they routinely use misleading terminology reminiscent of Orwellian Newspeak to conceal the true nature of their pernicious policies. 

The progressives’ manipulative inversion of customary meaning has played a central role in their aggressive moves to advance the toxic combination of policies so deceptively characterized as programs intended to promote diversity, equity, and Inclusion, or “DEI.” In fact, DEI programs pose a grave threat to every value they claim to promote.

The intolerant functionaries who define and drive DEI programs use Maoist-style struggle sessions to denounce and humiliate individuals who have dared to dissent from radical leftist orthodoxies, and to intimidate those who might think to dissent. They unlawfully compel compliant speech and extract publicly sworn loyalty oaths to enforce uniformity of opinion and restrict the free exchange of ideas.

DEI functionaries condemn meritocracy and equal protection under the law to justify the pursuit of “equity,” that is, the discriminatory leveling distribution of status and benefits to politically favored constituencies at the expense of others not so favored. But by validating the concept of identity-based discrimination and perpetuating the bigotry of low expectations, DEI administrators deny to those they claim to care about the only certain source of fairness and opportunity for personal fulfillment – equal meritocratic opportunity based on equal protection under the law. 

DEI functionaries use mob-backed cancellation tactics to suppress free speech by excluding from the public conversation those who dissent from radical leftist orthodoxies. And they use unlawful discriminatory employment practices to enforce uniformity of opinion by excluding dissenters from organizations where DEI programs define the culture.

Behind all the Newspeak camouflage, DEI is nothing more than a noxious combination of policies that entrench indefensible Discrimination, Exclusion, and Inequality. DEI has no place in a country founded on the principles and institutions embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. 

Martin Brown and Governor Youngkin are correct. DEI must die.

J. Kennerly Davis is a former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

34 responses to “Martin Brown Is Absolutely Correct: To Achieve Real Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, “DEI” Must Die”

  1. Love the ad hominem attacks right from the start. The author may have struck a nerve or at least spoke some truth.

    1. WayneS Avatar

      I looks like the moderator agreed with you about the ad hom attack.

      1. M. Purdy Avatar
        M. Purdy

        How my post ad hom?

        1. WayneS Avatar

          I don’t know. I did not say it was.

        2. WayneS Avatar

          I don’t know. I did not say it was.

        3. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Did you insult someone? Shame! Shame!

          Only The Shadow knows…

          Carol! Know anything of Larry?

          1. WayneS Avatar

            Yes, Ms. Bova, do you know anything of LarrytheG?

          2. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            I didn’t. I made fun of the author’s cliched post. And it’s in fact so cliche that if I made a parody of it, it would have all the same elements.

          3. WayneS Avatar

            Maybe the punctuation police deleted your comment because you failed to put accent marks in the word cliché.

          4. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            Certainly possible. I would like that more than the thought police coming to delete for an imagined ad hominem (and how’s that for a lame Orwell reference?).

          5. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Cliched? Oh, that’s better than what I thought. Sappy is what comes to mind foe me. But then, they’re not mutually exclusive.

          6. VaNavVet Avatar
            VaNavVet

            To many readers it would likely seem to be a scary thought that the author was once a deputy attorney general.

          7. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            That’s alarming. What’s less alarming, but still a problem is his deep belief that the founding principles were just magically put into practice. That and his inane references to Mao and Orwell.

  2. Lefty665 Avatar
    Lefty665

    Start by framing it as DIE. It’s as easy as pie, and it sure ain’t god.

  3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    As a former Deputy Attorney General, the author was a member of that “vast army of second-rate policy makers and bumbling bureaucrats.”

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Somebody has to fill the ranks. Rank? Isn’t there a connotation?

  4. Warmac9999 Avatar
    Warmac9999

    DEI is not only unconstitutional but anti-American as well. It is a rejection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Not a legal document.

      1. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        Few anti-american screeds are legal documents.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          No, no. The constant referencing to the (not a legal document) DoI.

          1. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Advocacy of Diversity, Opportunity and Inclusion seems virtuous, commendable and worthy of support even if it is only a policy rather than a legal document. It’s that openly racist “equity” that’s the sticking point.

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Numero uno definition…
            “… the quality of being fair and impartial.”

            What’s not to like?

          3. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            Keep trying.

          4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            If Youngkin considers DOI commendable and worthy of support, why can’t the Office of Diversity, Opportunity, and Inclusion even get a real web page or more than one staff member…?

  5. Lefty665 Avatar
    Lefty665

    Start by framing it as DIE. It’s as easy as pie, and it sure ain’t god as its advocates have framed it.

  6. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    “ The idea of America is a grand idea: the revolutionary proposition that all persons are created equal, endowed by their Creator with inherent dignity and unalienable rights”

    Well actually, that was the grand idea for justifying a revolution, not for the founding of the nation. Slavery and all that rot, ya know.

    “… to form a more perfect Union, yada, yada, yada,” was the revolutionary proposition that formed America, and it’s a work in progress, doncha know, ‘cause it took another four score and change to eliminate formal slavery — actually written in — and move to Jim Crow, i.e., local legalized second class citizenry. Won’t mention how long it took to recognize women… as if.

    I’m guessing UVa or U of Richmond. Certainly not Marshall-Wythe. Oooh, oooh, maybe Regent.

    1. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      The transformation of the University of Richmond and the Richmond Times Dispatch into woke organizations are among the dramatic changes I’ve seen in 50+ years of living in the Richmond area.

      There were a lot of things that needed to change around Richmond when I moved here. For example, the Klan was still burning crosses in the suburbs and the RTD’s sibling the Richmond News Leader was still bemoaning the demise of Massive Resistance. Approve or disapprove of wokeness, the change is rather profound.

  7. VaNavVet Avatar
    VaNavVet

    “Regressive authoritarians” most likely actually refers to conservatives. Progressive comes from progress which conservatives generally seem to disfavor.

    1. WayneS Avatar

      Progressive is a term liberals started using after they turned liberal into a bad word.

      😉

      1. VaNavVet Avatar
        VaNavVet

        Since conservative derives from “conserve”, you would think that they would be more interested in conserving the planet’s natural resources. Instead, the GOP seems to be very anti-environment.

    2. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      Conservative comes from conserve which progressives generally seem to disfavor.

      Us Indys come from fleeing the excesses of both the Pros and Cons.

    3. Tom B Avatar

      Ah, yes. Progressive progress. There’s an oxymoron for the ages.

      Today’s progressive politics are just like the 1200s, but with computers.

      1. VaNavVet Avatar
        VaNavVet

        Regressive is the opposite of progressive as conservative is the opposite of liberal. Hence, regressive conservatives! Not really as familiar with the 1200s as you seem to be.

        1. Tom B Avatar

          My comment, apparently too subtle for some, was that today’s progressives are the antithesis of progress.

Leave a Reply