Tom Powers writes that multiculturalism originated in the immediate aftermath of the civil rights revolution. His book, American Multiculturalism and the Anti-Discrimination Regime: The Challenge to Liberal Pluralism, takes readers through the legal history of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws and the very first moments when multiculturalism appeared in academic literature.

Powers argues that multiculturalism and its presence in the law are supported by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that, since then, activists have taken advantage of its legal protections. Every major institution in the United States, including our colleges and universities, must bow before multiculturalism. Powers says, “There stands a small army of institutionally authorized diversity or equity or equal opportunity officers whose job it is to ensure adherence to the law and, naturally therefore, to uphold and advance its moral and political outlook.” Powers demonstrates quickly, though, that multiculturalism is incapable of supporting an objective moral outlook.

Postmodernism is the engine driving today’s multiculturalism, and it is quite ironic. Powers defines postmodernist theory as “rejecting all claims that human beings can know the world.” Postmodernism denies the possibility of objective truth. Yet, multiculturalism claims its purpose—or at least one of its purposes—is to end discrimination. That is a political and moral statement, an appeal to a higher authority and a grandiose idea. But postmodernism has no ground to stand on because it collapses in on itself. It is aimless and shifts according to the societal trends of the times. Its real aim is to tear down without rebuilding. Postmodernism has permitted multiculturalism to embrace the equality of all cultures and all ideas—except, of course, those of Western civilization.

Powers then provides a fascinating history of multiculturalism as an academic discipline.

Since its inception, it prepares students for political activism, and teachers are the ones telling students to be “agents of change.” It creates an alternative version of American history and Western Civilization too, insisting both be taught “through the eyes of the vanquished.” This is a new kind of civic education. It is not one of pride but of guilt and shame. And multiculturalism did not remain just in the classroom; it expanded far out into public and private life.

Perhaps one of the main ideas Powers is getting across is that the Civil Rights Act and the body of legislation encompassing anti-discrimination law enforce a new standard of moral behavior that is itself vague and unclear. If multiculturalism claims the postmodern premise of denying objective truth, it too is susceptible to ever-changing cultural trends and exploitation. Such enforcement of the new morality is occurring in businesses, churches, government agencies, and civic organizations, but it has not been built on an objective moral foundation. The law has “separated the world into groups defined morally by their connection to past injustices done by some to others.” Yet if multiculturalism rejects objective truth, on what objective basis can it define justice? Postmodernism provides no satisfactory answer. The deception of multiculturalism is that its tenants seek power, pitting members of the “oppressed groups” against the “oppressors” and shaping public policy to hinder said “oppressors.” Rather than seeking compassion, understanding, and friendship, multiculturalism creates a never-ending cycle of us vs. them.

Powers draws attention to multiculturalism’s denial of human nature as well.

Traditional liberalism holds that there are natural differences among human groups. Humans must all be held equal before the law, but differences exist. It is not the place of government to settle those differences. Multiculturalism says the opposite. Equal outcomes and equal status must be ensured for everyone, especially groups that are “victims of oppression.” And political power is the tool to use. Whereas traditional liberalism works naturally to correct the injustices of the past, multiculturalism “openly divides groups against one another, encouraging a politics of permanent zero-sum competition, mistrust, and blame.”

Powers does not offer policy recommendations. That was not the purpose of this book. He wanted to explain the origins of multiculturalism and the immense legal protection it bears. He succeeded. Multiculturalism was not just a subfield of teacher education; it became a rallying cry for the far-left, postmodern activist. Multiculturalism’s umbrella grew so large that nearly all contemporary political and social agendas found refuge.

I welcome suggestions—and cancellation—on how to refute multiculturalism.