The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) exposed the mandatory program. It includes the following dogma.
"A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination….'"The purported "definition" of racism is a lie. Racism means treating people differently based solely on their race or hating people based on their race. This definition poses a problem for liberals, as it allows the reality that some individuals who are racial minorities are racist. Thus liberals invented the notion that those with "power" can or must be racist, while those without "power" cannot be racist, even if they murder people based on race.
The education program also notes that "reverse racism" is "a term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege." And "a non-racist" is called "a non-term," because, the program explains, "The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism, to maintain an aura of innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift the responsibility for that oppression from whites to people of color (called 'blaming the victim')."
The school requires its approximately 7,000 residence hall students "to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy and environmentalism."
Further, the school requires "a systemic change" as a result of the program, FIRE noted. As one RA told students: "Like it or not, you all are the future Leaders, and the world is Diverse, so learning to Embrace and Appreciate that diversity is ESSENTIAL."
According to university materials, RAs are instructed to ask students during one-on-one sessions questions such as: "When did you discover your sexual identity?" "When were you first made aware of your race?" and "Who taught you a lesson in regard to some sort of diversity awarness? What was the lesson?"
Liberals' definition of racism is itself racist. It demonizes people based solely on their race. It also attacks open discourse, as counterarguments are smeared as racist without substantive response.
This program exposes liberals' purported principles as shams. Free speech? Not if you say anything they don't like. Open-mindedness? Nope. The "right to privacy"? "When did you discover your sexual identity?" Freedom? Not at University of Delaware.
What happened to all the liberals who supposedly believe in these things? Did any liberals at University of Delaware object? Did any liberals anywhere object? After initially defending the program, the university was forced to back away from it, but this was due to pressure from conservatives, not liberals.
Thus the real meaning of diversity, the liberal shibboleth, is exposed. It has nothing to do with improving education, and it is not a harmless fad. Diversity is anti-white racism. Leftists hate white people, America, Christianity, and Western Civilization as "racist", "imperialist", etc. "Diversity" is the socially acceptable way to express hatred of these things. Increasing "diversity" means reducing and tearing down America, Christianity, and Western Civilization.
Diversity is simply the latest guise of cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism was developed by Marxist theorists to destroy the culture of Western Civilization. They launched a culture war against the West. Like political correctness, multiculturalism, and "tolerance", diversity seeks to destroy Western Civilization. Of course, most people who blather about diversity don't know any better, but at its core this is what it means.
There is a whiff of Stalinism to liberals mandating that RAs pry into people's personal beliefs and hold the correct political positions. Liberals can't throw Americans into gulags. The closest they can come is sensitivity training. But if someone did try to imprison dissenters, would liberals object? Or would they be turning people in?