After careful deliberation, a majority of Bristol’s Town Council voted not to sanction the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee (DEIC) as an arm of the government, as one proponent labeled it.

However, a letter in the Jan. 27, 2021, Bristol Phoenix suggested that Bristol could learn from Barrington, where the Town Council has sanctioned a Black Lives Matter flag to fly over Town Hall and appointed a facilitator to assist in training people toward diversity, equity and inclusion. Before Bristol follows such thinking, we should understand what the issues are.

While the terms diversity, equity and inclusion sound very nice, one has to look beyond these labels to understand their full meaning. The language and terms used by the supporters of the DEI Committee ascribe very specific meanings to these terms.
The DEI supporters assume that power imbalances, bigotry, privilege and prejudice exist everywhere. This assumption corrupts the commonality that binds all communities together. While these three words appear benevolent enough at first blush, a closer look reveals a more insidious intent.

So what do these terms mean for the DEI Committee supporters? Consider this:

DIVERSITY — that people must be represented proportionally by their identity group. The group is more important than the individual and opposes representation by merit and diversity of thought. Diversity eventually leads to quotas. It may well add spice to our lives, but there is little evidence that the lofty claims of diversity by groups produce a better society.  

EQUITY — stands in opposition to equality of opportunity. It assumes pure and simple equality of result. It ignores talent, hard work and fairness. It also assumes that unequal outcomes must be due to discrimination, privilege or bigotry.

It requires lowering of standards to achieve equity, rather than attempts to raise people up. It denies human responsibility and agency. All attempts to balance the equity equation are driven by an assumed bigotry and that disparate outcomes can “only be the result of prejudicial bigotry.”

INCLUSION — attempts to insure that “marginalized” people have a seat at the table. Marginalized refers to a person’s ascribed identity and alleged position in society, with no reference to objective circumstances. The definition of marginalization is far from clear. 

The letter cited above claims that “sanction of the DIEC by the Town Council would safeguard the rights for all here in Bristol, including those who have traditionally lacked privileges.”

Privilege is a subjective term, extremely hard to define and almost impossible to measure. We could say that the many immigrants who came to Bristol over the years lacked privilege. However, any motivated individual has the ability to overcome a lack of privilege, and many have done so with great success.

Additionally, the letter cited above claims that the “DEI committee would serve to support the important role of human rights, such rights that have the protections of laws.” If those rights have the protection of laws, why is a DEI Committee needed, especially since there is little or no evidence of any violation of those rights?

There is no good reason to follow Barrington’s diversity example.

Michael Byrnes
Bristol