Drunk on diversity

It is difficult to count the many ways that “diversity” harms our society.  One does not need to use convoluted reasoning, or far-fetched theories, to support the case against “diversity”.  All one needs is common sense.  The Oregonian recently provided us with yet another example of ethnic/racial diversity’s costs:

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — The Oregon Supreme Court is mulling over the argument that law enforcement officers are obligated to make sure that drunken driving suspects, even if they don’t speak English, understand the consequences of refusing to take a breath or blood test.
It led the state’s chief justice to wonder during a hearing Thursday whether a suspect could be so impaired the refusal couldn’t be used in court.
The appeal involves Jose L. Nunez Cabanilla, arrested in 2008 near Nyssa, south of Ontario in Eastern Oregon, the Salem Statesman Journal reported (http://stjr.nl/sNGRhv).
He refused to take a breath test, a fact the trial judge ruled could be used as evidence during the drunken driving trial.
Appealing the conviction, Deputy Public Defender Zachary Mazer argued that the warning given to the Spanish speaker was said in English, and Cabanilla didn’t understand it.
Unless the judge could find that the defendant understood the consequences, the refusal shouldn’t have been used in court, he said.

Somebody had the nerve to bring up the obvious:

At oral arguments, Chief Justice Paul De Muniz asked the difference between someone who didn’t understand the warning because it was in a different language and someone too intoxicated to understand it at all.
“So the drunker you are, then you can deny the state the evidence?” he asked.

The constitutionality of requiring drivers to submit to roadside sobriety tests aside, one can easily see how “diversity” might cost lives the moment Spanish speakers realize they will not be held accountable for putting the rest of us at risk.  What if the driver speaks only an obscure tribal language?  Must the police have expert linguists on hand at all times?  The demands of “diversity” ultimately make a mockery of our entire system of government and society.
Personally, I don’t care if Spanish speaking drivers understand the implications of their refusal to undergo a breath test.  All they need to understand is to learn English or go back to wherever they came from – preferably the latter.

This entry was posted in immigration/ Hispanics, pan-nationalism and multi-culturalism. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Drunk on diversity

    • eugenicist says:

      The assumption is that lack of diversity impairs quality. Unamusement Park would have a field day with that.

      • Stealth says:

        That is one of the dumbest assumptions the left holds. I’ve never understood why they would want to defend their positions with anything that stupid. It’s as if they think there can be no downside to diversity. It’s a downhill walk both ways! They would have a whole lot more credibility if they said that diversity some times poses challenges that we must overcome. There might be certain upsides, but there are always trade-offs. After all, I’ve rarely heard the phrase “personal differences” used in conjunction with the words “are our strength,” so I can’t imagine why someone would say that cultural differences have no drawbacks.

      • Oddly enough, someone could make a claim that diversity could be a strength if they also accepted human biodiversity.
        Imagine a sort mega-inter-disciplinary decathlon for a team of athletes and mathletes … in fact a -thlete for every type of achievement. This isn’t like an old-fashioned batting order, though – not everyone needs to participate in every event. Individuals can specialize, but no team can specialize. So you can run your West African in the 100 Meters, your East African in the 3000 Meters, your Spaniard in the Equestrian Events, your Chinese in the Swimming, your German at Physics, your American in the Making Up Products That Everyone Will Buy and Then Regret Buying and Be Mad at You, your Czech in Designing Artillery Pieces, and your Japanese in Copying Electronic Designs.
        Chosen correctly, that team should be able to beat any monoëthnic team. Two problems with this:
        First, it isn’t a team. More like Fantasy Football. If that team were really selected and structured as a team, who would be the captain? Which event should get the most of our necessarily-limited attention? Or our artificially-limited respect?
        Second, the only people who like multiëthnic collaboration seem to think that arguments over who should get respect (i.e. elections) are the upside and that biodiversity, far from being an upside or a downside, just doesn’t exist.
        So instead of noting that West Africans make better sprinters and Dutchmen make better hydroëngineers, we just have a permanent popularity contest which the West Africans always win because, while there are no races, and Europeans are never ever any smarter, West Africans are better at everything?

      • eugenicist says:

        Imagine a sort mega-inter-disciplinary decathlon for a team of athletes and mathletes…
        That is how many people view diversity. Since one ethnic group excels in one area, and another excels in another area, all you need to do is have both of these ethnic groups in your country to make it more competitive in both areas.
        Think of that joke which goes something like “In heaven, the cooks are French, the lovers are Italian, the policemen are English, the mechanics are Germans and everything is run by the Swiss…in hell, the cooks are English, the lovers are Swiss, the policemen are German, the mechanics are French and everything is run by the Italians.” People would like to live in such a “heaven,” even if they cannot imagine it, because they have been told it’s good. And so they think of diversity as being a great strength.
        Obviously, this doesn’t lead to greater cooperation and competitiveness, any more than a child of extremely ethnically different parents is “more fit.” But it is a comforting delusion, so it persists.

    • jewamongyou says:

      It is apparent that the author does not believe in proofreading his work. But, aside from that, as eugenicist says, the author simply assumes that ethnic “diversity” is a good thing. What if his blind interviews still yielded all white male candidates? I doubt he would change his mind.

    • Anon says:

      That is actually a fair minded discussion of what is happening with regards to minority talent. However Reis misses one component in addition to all others: namely that he is competing against AA(which he himself derides as a vehicle for unqualified talent) for qualified talent.
      He wants diversity to feel good about himself, but other businesses that aren’t fortunate enough to be able to dodge disparate impact have a more pressing need for what limited pool of qualified AA talent there is. Likewise blacks and women that could cut it in Computers can go somewhere else for less effort, and potentially a higher reward as well. Finally the white men displaced by AA will gravitate towards those institutions that are merely “fair”.
      If he wants more diversity he should oppose AA, to drive down the number of white men coming his way, and increase the number of diverse candidates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *