The king is but a man, as I am; the violet smells to him as it doth to me; the element shows to him as it doth to me; all his senses have but human conditions; his ceremonies laid by, in his nakedness he appears but a man; and though his affections are higher mounted than ours, yet, when they stoop, they stoop with the like wing.

William Shakespeare, Henry V

Much has been said about DEI–Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity. Critics characterize it as some evil process wreaking havoc on the fabric of America. They claim that teaching about these concepts and how they have been disproportionally applied somehow demeans American history and tradition.

But the concepts themselves are, or at least were intended to be, the basis of our form of government. The meaning of the words is a key element of our foundation.

The motto of the United States, E Pluribus Unum, “out of many, one,” represents the diversity of our people in forming one nation. Not a nation of all the same, but a diverse nation of many. It is from within our diversity that our nation flourishes and thrives.

Yet history shows us that a majority often squashed this diversity for their benefit. When these words were written, they did not apply to women or slaves. And they didn’t apply until much later in our history, at the price of great sacrifice.

The very words of the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self evident…”, proclaims.  “ that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” 

We are all entitled to an equitable share of this freedom. Throughout our history, this equity has not been equitable for all.  The words could not be more transparent; all men, meaning all people. But the reality is some benefited at the expense of others.

Our history is rife with examples of some being “more equal” than others.

In the original words of the Pledge of Allegiance (written by Socialist minister Francis Bellamy), the concept of inclusivity is key.

“”I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

In 1954, at the height of the Red Scare and Cold War, the words were changed to the more familiar,

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Yet the elemental concept of inclusivity, “liberty and justice for all,” remains key to the sentiment expressed.

Our history is rife with examples of some being “more equal” than others.

Joe Broadmeadow

Imbuing our institutions, schools, businesses, and governments with the full measure of  DEI is not some Draconian demand for lowering our standards or rewriting history. It is a demand that we recognize that history and past errors and the very real implications that linger today.

In a few hours, the new administration will assume power. Many of the seventy-plus million Americans who voted for this change embrace the idea that DEI is some malevolent philosophy infiltrating American society.

Are there parts of the process that need improvements? Of course. However, just because the process needs to enhance the elements that work and remove those that do not does not justify destroying the whole program. It says much about people willing to confront the harsh realities of the past. It also says much about people who choose not to out of some warped sense of nostalgia.

But if one takes the time to understand the genesis of such a philosophy, that artifacts of our history of suppressing others merely because of their race, creed, or sexual orientation still affect people every day, one will recognize the need for these programs.

(One thousand four hundred sixty-one. If you know, you know.)