It really did.

There may have been equally dumb headlines and op-ed pieces, but I can’t imagine what a worse one would be. This is what I get for being a Red Sox fan: the Boston Globe used to have the best baseball coverage in the U.S. back when I was still in Boston, so I return to it periodically when the baseball season looms. This was my reward: an example of deranged, arrogant, dissent-demonizing wokism that should never have been published, and wouldn’t be by a responsible newspaper, if there were such a thing any more.

Criticizing the cynical Diversity/Equity/Inclusion fad that was one of the many mutations of policy and logic to ooze out of the George Floyd Freakout is the equivalent of murdering innocent black men in the Deep South! Of course! What a brilliant analogy! Or perhaps it is more like…let’s see… making a Nash Rambler model out of clubroot and old Silly Putty?

The author of this brain-rotting garbage is Ya’Ke Smith , an associate professor of film at the University of Texas at Austin. Doesn’t that background just scream out: “public policy expert”? The silly rant signals repeatedly that it is just passionate woke nonsense unhinged to facts. For example, he writes, “the execution of George Floyd in Minneapolis.” That’s signature significance: no honest writer or one who cares at all about facts, history, law and reality would write that. Floyd was not by any measure intentionally killed, so he cannot have been “executed.” If I wasn’t obligated to cover terrible punditry and journalism ethics here, I wouldn’t finish reading an essay that characterized Floyd’s death that way. Anyone who would do that is a liar or an idiot, or both.

Smith sides with the Stanford Law students who shouted down a judge invited to speak and the DEI dean who demonstrated her approval of censorship on campus. Of course he does. He bemoans the fact that “across the U.S., DEI policies and practices are being stripped away.” (The correct response is “Good!”) In defense of the group spoils effort, Smith makes no substantive arguments at all, just ideological jargon and blather. Like…

Those against DEI want people to become distracted by false notions of difference. This is a distraction that stops the fight against a larger power structure that keeps many Americans from understanding the truth of history. If we see each other as enemies, the real enemy can go unchecked. Implicit bias and hatred surrounds, consumes, and confines us. It is present in textbooks, churches, institutions of higher education, news media, art galleries, and films. DEI initiatives open the door to face these realities. They break down barriers and offer tools to destroy the walls of racism and hatred that have shaped this country.

Hey, if you say so, dude! In reality, “those against DEI” correctly regard the device as compensatory discrimination, anti-merit, anti-excellence, unconstitutional and Marxism cloaked in deceit, and a threat to individual liberty, fairness, and national unity. This DEI addict claims that a system designed to distribute societal benefits and achievements by racial, sexual and ethnic categories opposes the notion of “difference” when in truth it elevates favored differences achieved through no effort by the individual to virtual “Golden Tickets.” Smith never explains why arguing against DEI makes the critic a racist murderer. I guess it’s supposed to be obvious.

There is no justification for the Globe printing such fatuous, hysterical, poorly reasoned junk unless its real goal was to demonstrate to readers just how ridiculous DEI is, and the abysmal quality of thought displayed by its adherents. Somehow, given the Globe’s liberal pedigree and its locale, I find that unlikely.

And the sports section isn’t even any good now.