Dear NYT Editor,
A parable for your readers in response to "Alarmed, Employers Ask: What Is ‘Illegal D.E.I.’?" Feb. 10, 2025, and the lethal lunacy surrounding DEI.
Parable: Defiance, Not Compliance – Deference to Nonsense Makes No Sense
One morning, all restaurant owners across the United States received an official letter from the government:
"Effective immediately, all restaurants must cease 'illegal service.' Any practice that might be seen as treating customers differently based on their tastes and needs will be subject to investigation and penalties. Restaurants found guilty of illegal service will lose their operating licenses."
Confused and alarmed, restaurant owners scrambled to understand what “illegal service” meant. Did it mean:
No more vegetarian or vegan menus?
No accommodations for allergies?
No separate kids' menus?
No variety of tables for parties of different sizes
No outdoor as well as indoor seating?
No accessibility measures?
No happy hours?
The seemingly deliberately ambiguous threat left everyone on edge.
Some restaurants immediately shut down their gluten-free options, fearing it might be seen as discriminatory against those who do not have gluten sensitivities. Others hesitated but worried—was singing happy birthday to a patron now an unlawful "preference"?
At first, some complied. Chains removed allergy-friendly dishes and standardized every plate, even if it meant endangering their customers. But then the backlash began. Patrons with dietary needs protested. Employees, confused by the illogical restrictions, quit. Parents demanded the return of high chairs. Chefs, frustrated that they could no longer craft menus based on customer needs, refused to comply.
Then, a coalition of restaurants took a stand.
“We cannot, and therefore will not, comply with this nonsense,” they declared. “Our purpose is to serve our customers fairly and ethically, based on their actual needs—not to abide by vague, irrational decrees that make service impossible.”
One by one, restaurants defied the order. They organized legal challenges. They educated the public about how absurd it was to criminalize meeting people’s needs. Eventually, the order collapsed under its own contradictions.
Moral of the story: Refuse to swallow harmful nonsense.
Commentaires