“Diversity-concerned” Loyola Marymount University paper “Agency” (sporting a lovely depiction of the all-seeing “eye” in its logo) reports that, earlier this month, the Associated Students of LMU Senate voted to begin impeachment proceedings against a member of the student senate.
And this is a very, very unique event at LMU, the Jesuit research school located in Los Angeles - firstly, because the student holds one of the school’s “Diversity and Inclusion Senator” slots, and, secondly, because the student, Stephanie Martinez, is the first to be targeted for impeachment in LMU history.
What a time to be alive.
As Raven Yamamoto (pronouns “they/them,” according to her bio) and Danica Creachan (who accepts grammatically/numerically correct pronouns in conversation, according to hers) write, Sen. Martinez was targeted by fellow “Diversity and Inclusion Senator” Camille Orozco, who alleged that Martinez had violated the group's rules in some tweets.
Sen. Orozco made her complaint on the grounds that Sen. Martinez had, in her view, violated Article 8, Subsection B, subsection d3 of the ASLMU Bylaws in which it states that an impeachment complaint can be brought if a senator has conducted themselves in a way ‘that severely damages the integrity or authority of ASLMU or the office held by the individual in question.’
...'Sen. Martinez’ public statements and actions undermine the mission of inclusivity pertinent to her role as Senator for Diversity and Inclusion,’ Orozco said.
Why? Well because, as Haley Worth writes for CampusReform, Martinez’s tweets are just too divergent for the arbiters of diversity:
The tweets that sparked the controversy were about illegal immigration, one of which stated, ‘The same people advocating for rights, equality and better conditions for illegal aliens are the same one (sic) censoring freedom of speech (a right), defaming and initiating hostility for those Americans with divergent views! Sad!’
And - horror! - Martinez also started a LMU Students for Trump Instagram page.
Martinez has appealed the impeachment, a hearing for which is scheduled on October 30, and, should the appeal fail, her removal hearing will occur on November 1.
’The impeachment hearing proved that a mob mentality will always prevail - it was a kangaroo court,’ Martinez told Campus Reform. ‘For a student government that claims to advocate for all students, they seem to exclude conservative students. This student government does not care for the well-being of conservative students on campus. They do not and will not have our best interest at heart.’
It’s curious, because the discovery of Martinez’s support for Trump and his immigration policies appears to be what has given rise to Orozco’s umbrage and led to the impeachment proceedings - curious indeed, given the idea that a student organization concerned about “diversity and inclusivity” should shut out a person for not conforming to their orthodox view of “inclusion” is, in itself, neither inclusive nor diverse.
Which, of course, highlights the darker side of collective "diversity."
As individuals, we get to choose how wide our parameters for inclusion will be, how diverse we want to be in our various fields of interest and endeavor, in our circles of friends. As free individuals, that is for each of us to judge, adjust, and reassess over time. At certain points, we reach moments when “inclusivity” has its limits, so, for example, I wouldn’t be so inclusive as to invite John Podesta to my house, because he doesn’t seem like the kind of guy with whom I’d want to associate. This allows interpersonal ethics to create a kind of “market” for behavior and interests, allowing people to associate with whom they like.
But in political collectives, no one has a real choice. People are forcibly included into the collective, and, as a result, they argue over the rules and standards which must be accepted by all. So, if you’re an atheist and believe there is no God? You’ll be forced to associate with a Christian or a Jewish person, regardless of your time, resource allocation plans, or discomfort. If you’re a vegan, you’ll be forced to spend time with a hunter.
Now, it’s easy to note that, to some degree, this can be a healthy thing. It can be healthy to mix and learn from others. But the question is, should this be forced? Shouldn’t we be free to determine how much experimentation and learning and diversity we want in our lives on any given day? Doesn’t the very act of force run contrary to the idea of diversity in the first place?
While Loyola Marymount is a place where students voluntarily choose to “learn,” it carries with it a degree of the “officialdom” people feel when dealing with the state, and its student body tries to manage the multitudinous desires of all. As a result, we see “exclusion by the inclusive,” the paradoxical lack of diversity among those who claim to support diversity, the shutting down of dissent by the very people who claim that freedom of speech and expression are the ultimate in human achievement. And, of course, we see its use as a Cultural Marxist weapon to shut down dissent, for, who can argue for his or her position against those who claim a monopoly on what is “diversity” of thought and expression?
Collectivists who hide behind the shield of “diversity” while censoring and attacking those with nonconformist opinions do nothing to promote real diversity or independence of thought. They promote the gang, the mob – and they don’t help to reassure observers that our rights and liberty would be safe around them.