Refusing to bow to the god of "diversity"

I was rejected for the NSF fellowship for postgraduate studies, and the rating sheets telling me why are made available to me now. They rate you based on "Intellectual Merit" (it seems to be based on test scores and other "hard" measures of intellect) and "Broader Impacts" (which seems to be ranked on "soft" things such as "vision" and whatnot). I was rated "very good" (one below "excellent") for intellectual merit in both reviewers minds, but one reviewer ranked me as in between "very good" and "good" for "Broader Impacts" - the other reviewer gave me "very good". The comments from this reviewer were that I "deliberately downplayed diversity, in the sense that NSF means diversity, perhaps to the applicant's disadvantage."
Here my actual paragraph on diversity from my application:

Another issue that deserves addressing is the issue of diversity, or lack thereof, in the sciences and engineering. I refer not to the lack of diversity in the superficial sense that is being constantly being broadcast nowadays, but a more insidious lack of intellectual diversity that seems to be creeping into the academic world. Basic intellectual exercises such as questioning and testing assumptions are sometimes being cast aside in favor of an intellectual homogeneity that I believe is terrible for academia. This sort of problem is most noticeable in the social sciences and liberal arts, but this mindset is creeping into science and engineering as well. Having witnessed many bad situations prolonged by groupthink during my years at Intel, this same groupthink is toxic in academia as well. During my career I hope to teach students that the best way to avoid this mindset is to work and think independently to ensure the most diversity in the points-of-view in the analysis of a problem. The greatest advancements tend to be made by the most nonlinear thinkers.

You be the judge (echoes of Larry Summers, no?). Evidently, NSF (at least this particular reviewer) values diversity based on outward appearance rather than diversity of intellect. How does this make sense? Einstein was a genius because of his inventive thinking, not because of some pseudo-concept of "accumulation of life experiences" or whatever they use to justify their idiotic notion of diversity.

I don't know if I will be able to stand academia post grad school, much less while I'm here.

Update: I just realized reading this post that I made it sound like I was rejected because of this. This is not the case. Only 2 Princeton ChE's got the fellowship, and they were both second time applicants. I don't even know what the criteria was for honorable mention (which I didn't get, but 3 of my classmates did - probably you have to be rated "excellent" in at least one category, or your actual research proposal needs to be good, which mine wasn't). I just wanted to point out that my refusal to adhere to this unstated leftist code of conduct docked me some points.