From Polish philosopher Ryszard Legutko’s great book The Demon In Democracy, this passage about what communism was like:

The success of the new order depended on the rate and extent of penetration of communism in all areas of life. In more concrete terms, it meant, among other things, that the entire society had to be transformed into a communist society, with all communities and institutions controlled by the Communist Party, the sole maker and arbiter of socialist standards. We in Poland had a socialist society, socialist schools and universities, a socialist family, socialist morality, and, for sometime, even socialist art and socialist realism. In the socialist motherlands we had the socialist economy in which people worked in a system that took the form of a socialist competition.

What did such language mean in practice? First of all, it was a signal that everything and everyone was involved in “building socialism” and that it was not possible to evade this task; the person who dodged the duty could reasonably be suspected of stupidity or bad intentions, and usually of both. Even relatively independent organizations — and these were few — had to submit regular declarations to prove that they participated in work according to the best of their abilities and that they certainly appreciated the value of the project. Sometimes this meant — especially in the beginning — a radical restructuring that would change everything and not leave anything as it was before. Such was the experience of the universities, schools, and all organizations that, when restructured in accordance with the nature of the communist system, lost their heritage and acquired a new function and a new identity.

Replace the words communism, communist, socialism, and socialist with diversity and diverse, and see how well that describes the domineering ideology emerging within US universities, corporations, and other institutions.

UPDATE: Reader Nick:

For those readers for whom, like for me, it is too early in the morning to sort out the substitutions proposed by RD:

The success of the new order depended on the rate and extent of penetration of diversity in all areas of life. In more concrete terms, it meant, among other things, that the entire society had to be transformed into a diverse society, with all communities and institutions controlled by the Diversity Party, the sole maker and arbiter of diversity standards. We in Poland had a diverse society, diverse schools and universities, a diverse family, diverse morality, and, for sometime, even diverse art and diverse realism. In the diverse motherlands we had the diverse economy in which people worked in a system that took the form of a diverse competition.

What did such language mean in practice? First of all, it was a signal that everything and everyone was involved in “building diversity” and that it was not possible to evade this task; the person who dodged the duty could reasonably be suspected of stupidity or bad intentions, and usually of both. Even relatively independent organizations — and these were few — had to submit regular declarations to prove that they participated in work according to the best of their abilities and that they certainly appreciated the value of the project. Sometimes this meant — especially in the beginning — a radical restructuring that would change everything and not leave anything as it was before. Such was the experience of the universities, schools, and all organizations that, when restructured in accordance with the nature of the diverse system, lost their heritage and acquired a new function and a new identity.