In looking up definitions of “neologism” while preparing my previous post, in which I apologized for having committed one, I ran across the following from Wikipedia (links and notes omitted):
In psychiatry, the term neologism is used to describe the use of words that have meaning only to the person who uses them, independent of their common meaning. This is considered normal in children, but a symptom of thought disorder (indicative of a psychotic mental illness, such as schizophrenia) in adults. People with autism also may create neologisms. Additionally, use of neologisms may be related to aphasia acquired after brain damage resulting from a stroke or head injury.
In theology, a neologism is a relatively new doctrine (for example, Transcendentalism). In this sense, a neologist is one who proposes either a new doctrine or a new interpretation of source material such as religious texts.
The current usage of “diversity” seems to meet all these definitions. That usage — essentially treating the term as a synonym for “black and Hispanic” — is certainly unmoored from its traditional and “common meaning.” Perhaps those who have adopted and forced upon the rest of us this new meaning are children or autistic or brain-damaged, psychotic adults suffering sundry thought disorders who preach from a strange new sacred text one of whose teachings is that treating people without regard to their race is discriminating against them.
UPDATE (30 April)
The children or psychotic adults (in this case, the UCLA faculty) are at it again. In “Not A Diversity Requirement?” this morning, Inside Higher Ed reports on renewed controversy at UCLA involving an old and recurring debate over demands to include a “diversity” requirement for graduation. That demand was voted down in 2004, but now its proponents have a new proposal “that would require students to take one course (out of 10 they have to take to fulfill their general education requirements) in the area of community and conflict, to be defined by the College of Letters and Science.”
Critics, of course, describe this proposal as simply a “diversity” requirement hiding behind different words.
One of them is Matthew Malkan, a professor of physics and astronomy, who said that if one looks at all the statements advancing the current proposal, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that this is a diversity requirement by any other name. “It is not possible to distinguish it from the diversity requirement logically or intellectually,” he said.
I may have more to say about this controversy presently, but what interests me here is the felt need for a new name.
Kyle McJunkin, director of curriculum coordination and operations, said there has always been an interest in the university in having such courses as a requirement. “From what I gather, the earlier efforts were poorly defined and the inclusion of the word ‘diversity’ in the requirement seemed like a loaded word to many because it means different things to different people,” he said.
In the old days, before it had been commandeered and corrupted by the diversiphiles, “diversity” had a “common meaning” that would have meant the same thing to different people, no matter how diverse.
