The University of Cincinnati is planning to require its new faculty and staff swear an oath to Diversity:

As of July 1, the University of Cincinnati will request a Diversity and Inclusion statement of all applicants for faculty and staff positions … new job postings related to staff openings will also require a Diversity and Inclusion statement.

This “Diversity and Inclusion” oath will be a “personal statement summarizing” an applicant’s “contributions (or potential contributions) to diversity, inclusion and leadership.”

Diversity is the prevailing ideology of the declining West, and it is well that those attached to UC acknowledge that they must hold to Diversity’s tenets and that they will be responsible to assist in indoctrinating students into them. It is better to lay out in a plain and frank manner what is required of professors and employees up front rather than leaving the matter to occult and obscure whim. One likes to know where one stands.

The requirement of the oath serves both UC in weeding out doctrinally impure candidates and it assists potential applicants to understand just what kind of hellhole UC seeks to become. There is no ambiguity for either side and this is good.

Diversity is our weakness. It is a satanic (some readers may wish to capitalize the word) religion more bizarre than anything L Ron Hubbard ever thought up. Diversity is manic, corrosive, unChristian, divisive, weakening and most of all intolerant. Diversity requires strict unyielding uniformity of its adherents.

At the least, Diversity is the giving of special considerations to members of officially designated victim groups whether or not individuals in those groups have suffered in any way for being members of these groups. This claim is backed by the University of Cincinnati itself, which includes a glossary of victimology in its Diversity Report that recommends the oath. For instance, the glossary defines empowerment: “When target [i.e. victim] group members refuse to accept the dominant ideology and their subordinate status and take actions to redistribute social power more equitably.”

Diversity insists that being a member of a victim group should not in any way be meaningful, but at the same time it requires every individual to self-identify and take pride in being a member of at least one group. Because of this, Diversity mandates rigid quotas for victims while simultaneously denying it uses these quotas. Considerations of Diversity apparently trump basic logic.

UC insists in its Diversity Report that it will use quotas and “increase diversity in the confirmed undergraduate and graduate student pool.” It will also increase Diversity in faculty, and it “will develop and implement strategies to retain a diverse faculty through the probationary period leading up to and beyond the tenure decision.” Meaning, of course, group membership will count in granting tenure. The University will also give money to Diverse suppliers. A Chief Diversity Officer will be hired, and under this new (expensive) bureaucracy, the university will “Establish and monitor annual goals” in all Diversity areas.

The only difficulty with the University’s oath is that the list of official victims is not given. Their definition of Diversity includes “aspects of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, class and much more.”

That “much more” is ominous. Since the limits of victimhood are not delineated, and because holiness signaling is bound to occur, victim groups can only expand, and what was considered “diverse” yesterday will seem reactionary today. This must lead to the well-known phenomenon of the left eating its own.

This theory provides a testable prediction: Look for, in the next year or two, a faculty or staff member of UC to be fired or disciplined for not being sufficiently committed to Diversity. (Those who are never hired we’ll never learn about.)