Commentary
The quest for ‘diversity’ has become a universal call for all institutions, including universities, government agencies, businesses, and even the legal community. “Diversity” is defined to include skin color, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation.
However, one kind of diversity not included in this list (and one that is desperately needed today) is perspective diversity. In fact, that most important kind of diversity is not welcome at all. Too often they are actively avoided or canceled outright.
This played out last winter in Trucker’s “Freedom Convoy.” Protesters in Ottawa, representing a significant segment of the Canadian public, have protested against the government in the name of “keeping Canadians safe” from vaccine mandates and a respiratory virus that no government listens to. I’m tired of taking measures that go too far. They also called for a government hearing, which is expected to belong to all Canadians.
Instead, they were called by name by the prime minister and told that they had “unacceptable views”. Harsh punishments followed, including seizure of bank accounts. Clearly, a government committed to ‘diversity’ did not include diversity of perspectives in its list.
But we also see that perspective diversity is not included in the diversity list of all Canadian institutions. Colleges that have made the quest for “diversity” an almost religious calling routinely denounce or outright cancel colleges with perspectives they don’t approve of. Mainstream newspapers simply refuse to allow writers with different perspectives to air their views on issues like boarding schools, climate change, and COVID-19 vaccinations. There is no diversity there.
But recent Twitter revelations are starting to show how damaging it can be to fail to allow diverse perspectives to thrive. Twitter certainly encouraged diversity in almost everything except diversity of perspectives. Twitter staff come in different colors, genders, and sexual orientations. But until Elon Musk came along, Twitter lacked the diversity that really matters: the diversity of perspectives. While some of his Twitter employees were actively partisan, most simply viewed things through a progressive lens. There were few conservative thinkers on the Twitter payroll. As a result, the polychromatic, polygender, and diverse sexual orientation staff all thought alike. They all lived within the same liberal/progressive thought bubble.
There is nothing wrong with their views, and perhaps half the population holds similar liberal/progressive views. The problem is that everyone in the organization approached censorship decisions from that very perspective. There were no conservative thinkers to provide balance. Twitter staff may look different, but they were thinking the same thing.
There is nothing wrong with the point of view of an urban, middle-class, college-educated journalist, but when all journalists come from the same background, A problem arises. Journalists view all articles through a progressive lens. At a time when many “newspaper reporters” were blue-collar conservatives, there was a balance in mainstream newspapers. But that’s pretty much gone now.
As a result, many alternative maintenance media outlets have emerged. And this leads to a world where half the population lives in his one liberal/progressive thought bubble and the other half in his traditionalist/conservative thought bubble. And the two never meet.
And those who live within one bubble deny or “cancel” access to those who live within the other bubble.
There is no clear solution for this problem. Personally, I can leave my comfy bubble from time to time to see what people in other bubbles are watching and reading. Fox fans can turn on her CNN and vice versa. Alternatively, in Canada, fans of CBC or CTV can watch True North or Rebel News. Readers of the Globe and Mail may choose to read the Western Standard from time to time. and vice versa.
But notice how much damage our leading institutions are doing by forcing everyone to accept liberal/progressive views and marginalizing differently thinking Canadians. Until you do, the problem will only get worse.
In fact, civil rights battles over rights regarding skin color, gender, and sexual orientation were largely won a few years ago. Such “diversity” is already accepted. Stay here. But the battle over the inability to embrace diverse perspectives is raging and shows no signs of abating any time soon.
That intolerance undermines the freedom of speech that is essential for democracy to survive, and solutions must be found.
Diversity of perspectives is the most important diversity. Canada needs it.
Views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Epoch Times.
Brian Giesbrecht is a former judge and senior fellow at the Frontier Center for Public Policy.