D.E.I. Hiring

DIVERSITY, EQUALITY, INCLUSION. D.E.I.. These are three good things, worth striving for, are they not? Acceptance of human differences of all kinds. Equal justice, opportunity, legal and social status. Accepting, including everybody, as much as possible.These are all desirable, within reasonable limits. Criminals, until redeemed, are not entitled to them. Equality and inclusion imply their own sort of uniformity, uniformity of treatment. Diversity too. These are ideals, aspirations, relative to circumstances, not immutably set in stone. Calling Kamala Haris a "D.E.I. hire" is an intended insult to her, and to the culture which expouses those values. As if her hiring as a presidential candidate is predicated only on those three principles, and not her personal qualifications and credentials. Did Obama become president because of, or in spite of his being half African-American? Probably both. The same would probably be true for Kamala Harris. Presidential candiate, and, if elected, president partly because of, and partly in spite of being a mixed race woman. Conservatives might assert that D.E.I is a needless, aritficial aspiration, because it limits people's choices and opposes discrimination by creating more discrimination, like affirmative action. But without mandated, artifically imposed D.E.I., society will naturally tend to discourage all three. Society naturally encourages cultural uniformity,conformity, creates inequality of status, and excludes people for various unfair reasons. Hiring Kamala Harris to be a presidential candidate can be seen as an insult to her and both a compliment and an insult to society, a socity seeking to mandate D.E.I., as if her credentials and qualificaitions are not a factor, which they most certainly are. This, depending on whether one beleives that society should support and encourage D.E.I..It is a definite insult to Kamala Harris, as intended. She is qualified, regardless of ethnicity and gender,and she knows it. The notion that her hiring was only the result of society's desire to encourage and support D.E.I. is doubtless an insult to her. The best strategy for the Democrats would be to constantly emphasize her personal qualifications and credentials, and that her hire, though based on both these and on D.E.I., was much more based on her professional accomplishments. There is no need for Democrats to deny that D.E.I. played a part, just as it played a part in hiring Obama. He too was eminently personally qualified, regardless of his race, by virtue of his intelligence, education, and professional experience, as is Harris. What should the Republicans do? They should probably adandon the whole "D.E.I. hire" insult strategy, but they likely won't, at least entirely. They are forced by their own assertion to argue that only D.E.I. considerations resulted in her hiring, and that her personal qualifications have nothing to do with it. Since the Democrats readily accede to the notion that D.E.I. was a factor, because D.E.I. is a good thing, the "D.E.I. hire" insult loses effectiveness, becomes less of an insult. Of course D.E.I. was a factor, an indication of positive societal evolution. That is a source of pride, not shame. At this point, the Republicans are forced to argue that Harris's credentials and qualifications had little or nothing to do with her hiring. That argument they will find very difficult to support with evidence.