Coiled in the contemporary political landscape, the mantra of "diversity and inclusion" is often presented as an unassailable virtue, a moral trump card that ends all debate. Yet, as James Alexander incisively argues, this ideology harbors a subtle but profound contradiction: it champions inclusivity while simultaneously excluding those who question its premises. This paradox, which Alexander illustrates through Sadiq Khan's October 13, 2025, Guardian op-ed, is not just a rhetorical sleight-of-hand but a structural flaw in the logic of the modern establishment. By failing to apply diversity self-referentially, that is, to include those who oppose diversity, the ideology reveals itself as less universal than it claims, undermining its own moral authority and fuelling resentment. I examinethis paradox and its implications for our polarised world.
Sadiq Khan's Guardian piece, headlined "All beliefs are welcome in London – we cannot allow extremists to divide us," is a textbook example of this contradiction. Khan extols the virtues of diversity, arguing that London's varied faiths and cultures foster unity rather than division. "Different beliefs can bring us closer," he writes, positioning himself as a defender of "common humanity" against those who "exacerbate tensions" by appealing to "our worst instincts." The culprits? Unnamed politicians and commentators, implicitly the "far Right" or "extremists," who weaponise events to sow discord.
On the surface, this is a call for peace and harmony, unobjectionable to most. But Alexander spots the sleight: Khan's defense of diversity is not universal. By condemning those who oppose his vision of inclusion, he excludes them from the very diversity he celebrates. The headline itself — "All beliefs are welcome" — is a contradiction when it implicitly ostracises those sceptical of unchecked diversity. As Alexander puts it, "By resisting the forces of division you are, necessarily, engaging in division." Khan's logic mirrors a broader pattern in establishment rhetoric: diversity is sacrosanct, so those who question it are not just wrong but dangerous, justifying their exclusion from the inclusive utopia.
This is not mere hypocrisy but a logical paradox. The argument runs like this:
I champion diversity and inclusion, which are inherently good.
My opponents oppose diversity, making them divisive.
Therefore, I must condemn and exclude them to protect diversity.
The flaw is glaring: in excluding the critics of diversity, the advocate becomes exclusive, undermining the principle they claim to uphold. Alexander likens this to René Girard's concept of scapegoating, where societies maintain cohesion by casting out a designated "other." Here, the "far Right" or "extremists" become the scapegoats, their exclusion framed as a defence of unity. Yet, as Alexander notes, this move is particularly insidious in liberalism, which cloaks its scapegoating in the language of universal acceptance while denying its own contradictions.
What makes this paradox so pervasive, and so frustrating, is its apparent invisibility to those who perpetuate it. Khan, like many in the establishment (from Keir Starmer to the Guardian to academics like Mary Beard), seems unaware of the contradiction. To them, diversity is not just a policy but a "divine revelation," as Alexander puts it, an absolute truth that requires no justification. This intellectual laziness allows the establishment to surf the zeitgeist, signalling virtue while engaging in the same divisive tactics they condemn in others. The result is a political discourse that feels both sanctimonious and duplicitous, building "little gulags on the low ground" while claiming the moral high ground.
Alexander's critique is not that diversity itself is inherently bad but that its ideological application is flawed. The claim that "different beliefs can bring us closer" is either naïve or disingenuous, he argues, as history shows that differing beliefs often divide rather than unite, unless those beliefs are diluted to the point of irrelevance. Khan's assertion assumes a harmony that doesn't withstand scrutiny, ignoring the tensions that arise when deeply held convictions clash. By failing to grapple with these realities, the diversity advocate sidesteps the hard work of true pluralism, which would require engaging with dissenters rather than exiling them.
This paradox is not unique to Khan but a hallmark of what Alexander calls the "Far-Left-Centrist-Mainstream-Establishment." It's visible in academia, where scholars decry "extremism" while silencing heterodox voices; in journalism, where outlets like the Guardian champion tolerance but demonise populist movements; and in politics, where leaders invoke unity to marginalise dissent. The logic is always the same: diversity is good, so opposition to it is bad, justifying the exclusion of the opposition. This creates a feedback loop where the establishment reinforces its moral superiority while dismissing critics as "fascists" or "divisive," terms that shut down debate without addressing the underlying contradiction.
The consequences are profound. By refusing to apply diversity self-referentially, to include those who oppose diversity, the establishment alienates a growing segment of the population. These fuels the very "far Right" it decries, as excluded voices turn to populist or extremist alternatives. Alexander notes that this dynamic, while not new, has gained political edge in the 21st century as more people recognize the hypocrisy. The establishment's bewilderment at this backlash only underscores its blindness to its own logic.
So, how do we move forward? Alexander's solution is to drag the establishment "to the slough of their own logic" and force them to confront the paradox. This means challenging the sanctity of diversity as an unassailable good and insisting on a more honest pluralism, one that includes even those who question inclusion. It's not about abandoning diversity but about applying it consistently, acknowledging that true inclusion must tolerate dissent, even when it's uncomfortable.
This requires intellectual courage and humility, qualities often lacking in a discourse dominated by virtue-signalling. It also means resisting the temptation to scapegoat, whether the target is the "far Right" or the establishment itself. As Girard warned, scapegoating is a human default, but liberalism's version, cloaked in the language of tolerance, is particularly insidious because it denies its own existence. By calling out this paradox, we can begin to dismantle the "boring, tricky little move" that Alexander finds so tedious and replace it with a more robust, self-aware debate.
The ideology of diversity, as currently practiced, is not the universal good it claims to be. Its failure to include its critics reveals a limit that undermines its moral authority and fuels division. Sadiq Khan's op-ed is just one example of a broader pattern, where the establishment champions inclusion while practicing exclusion, all while claiming the moral high ground. This paradox is not just a logical flaw but a political liability, driving resentment and polarisation.
As Alexander argues, the antidote is not to reject diversity but to expose its contradictions and demand a more consistent application. True pluralism would embrace the discomfort of differing beliefs, including those that challenge the diversity dogma. Until the establishment reckons with this, it will continue to build its "little gulags" while preaching unity, leaving the rest of us to navigate a discourse that's as hypocritical as it is divisive. The task now is to hold a mirror to this logic and insist on a better way forward, one that doesn't sacrifice truth for the sake of ideology.
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/10/25/diversity-never-includes-those-not-keen-on-diversity/