![\"\"](\"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/barrett.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Yesterday, Secretary of the Air Force Barbara Barrett chaired the first meeting<\/a> of the Defense Board on Diversity and Inclusion<\/a> \u2013 a recent creation of Secretary of Defense Mark Esper explicitly in response to the death of George Floyd. In that meeting, Secretary Barrett used some direct \u2013 if somewhat unspecific \u2013 language [emphasis added]:<\/p>\n Diversity is more than tolerance. Genuine diversity generates acceptance.<\/strong> This Board\u2019s mandate is to move forward with alacrity and positively transform the Defense Department for today\u2019s service members and for generations to come.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Alacrity notwithstanding, her statement begs the question: What does she mean by \u201cacceptance\u201d that is more than tolerance?<\/p>\n For context, consider that members of the LGBT community have implied<\/a> the distinction between the two terms is one of assent and support \u2013 and they have demanded that society move past tolerance to \u201cacceptance\u201d. Authors at The Federalist argued<\/a> over the distinction with regard to religious liberty, noting the potential conflicts with liberty when moving beyond \u201ctolerance.\u201d At Psychology Today, an article<\/a> explained it this way:<\/p>\n Acceptance goes a step beyond tolerance. If a sign of tolerance is a feeling of \u201cI can live with X (behavior, religion, race, culture, etc.),\u201d then acceptance moves beyond that in the direction of \u201cX is OK.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n There seems to be little debate that tolerance, at its core, is the permissive attitude toward that which is different than our own. How far \u201cacceptance\u201d goes beyond that is up for debate \u2013 but there is universal agreement that it does, indeed, go beyond<\/em> allowing others to be different without animus.<\/p>\n As recently as the repeal of DADT, \u201cprogressive\u201d portions of society reassured their critics that they would be allowed to believe<\/em> whatever they wanted \u2013 they just needed to allow others to be \u201cwho they are\u201d. In other words, tolerance is all that was required. Skeptics of that reassurance were mocked. Now, however, Secretary Barrett appears<\/em> to be leaning toward, if not espousing, the view that more is<\/em> required. In other words, we must not just demonstrate tolerance<\/em>, but also acceptance<\/em>. No longer is it enough to let others be who they are; now, you must accept the validity their worldview in the name of \u201cdiversity.\u201d<\/p>\n If you believe Ford is better than Chevrolet (and if I believe the opposite), I can be tolerant of those beliefs, even if I believe you to be wrong. I can respect you as a person, even if I believe your judgment in automobiles to be poor. However, that may no longer be enough. Now, I am not allowed to view your vehicular judgment as poor; rather, I must \u201caccept\u201d that your wayward beliefs \u201care OK\u201d. Or, to go a step further, I must assent to the validity of your truth claim. Either of those versions of \u201cacceptance\u201d requires not<\/em> that I allow you<\/em><\/strong> to be<\/strong> <\/em>wrong, but that I<\/strong> <\/em>change my<\/strong> <\/em>core moral beliefs so that you no longer are<\/em> <\/strong>wrong.<\/p>\n The end result of such enforced \u201cacceptance\u201d isn\u2019t diversity; it is uniformity of thought.<\/p>\n To obtain Secretary Barrett\u2019s goal of diversity \u2013 one that generates \u201cacceptance\u201d rather than tolerance \u2013 must her Airmen accept, accede, or assent to the views, attitudes, and beliefs of their fellow Airmen, even those contrary to their core beliefs?<\/p>\n Such a construct is ridiculous on its face. It is reasonable to require that members of an institution tolerate<\/strong> diverse views. It is not<\/em> reasonable \u2013 particularly in a country that values human liberties \u2013 to require that they accept the<\/strong> validity<\/strong> of those diverse views. Tolerance<\/strong><\/span> is one person\u2019s acknowledgement of another person\u2019s right to be wrong<\/strong>. Acceptance<\/strong><\/span>, in going beyond tolerance, ultimately removes the very idea<\/em> of wrong<\/strong> \u2013 that is, if you hold the officially-approved ideas. After all, one cannot logically \u201caccept\u201d diametrically opposing views.<\/p>\n So, if there are two opposing ideologies, which will the government require be accepted — that of the Airman who is religiously conservative, or that of the Airman whose sexual morality is \u201cfluid\u201d?<\/p>\n\n