Diversity is good. Prove it!

[JamesCarroll]

I saw two recent legal decisions that made me think.

The first was a simple criminal case where the prosecution had fingerprints implicating the defendant. The defense argued that fingerprints weren't valid because there really haven't been any studies that proved that fingerprints were unique; we'd just always assumed that they were. The judge agreed.

The second was a case regarding entrance into law school and the classic "reverse" discrimination cases where white students are passed over for "students of color" in order to achieve diversity. The belief is, of course, that a diverse student body is better.


So my question is: Prove it. Are there any studies that prove that a diverse student body is better then one that isn't? How would people at some women's colleges or "traditionally African American" colleges respond?

[Mangetout]

Being able to cope in a culturally-diverse environment is fast becoming a positive survival trait, what with the whole global village thing. In a society determined to isolate itself from outside influence, diversity may not be positively useful, but such a society puts itself at a disadvantage in very many ways.

Diversity is stimulating in many ways; mixtures of jellybeans are always more popular than single-flavour packets, even though most people probably eat them one at a time, ice cream stores that offer a choice of 42 flavours are likely to sell more than a store that only offers vanilla, even though most people will not order a cone loaded with a scoop of every flavour, clothing shops that offer a wide range of styles and colours will do better business than a shop that only sells green shirts, even if some customers only want a green shirt.

In a situation where there is no clearly defined 'right' or 'best', it makes sense to start with as diverse a set of options as possible, it's easier to do this and discard some of them (or PC 'de-emphasise') than it would be to start with only one (possibly unsuitable) option and attempt to pull a suitable one out of thin air.

[grendel72]

First of all, going to a segregated (in any way) school doesn't prepare a student for the real world.
Second, education is supposed to broaden a person's horizons, I've met people who went to religious boarding schools and they were incredibly socially awkward and not very "culturally literate".
Third is what I call cultural triangulation- if there are a limited number of "great thinkers", society as a whole is better off if they come from a variety of backgrounds and see things in different ways- it helps to eliminate blind spots. *I didn't explain that very well.*

[Mangetout]

In fact, I'm struggling to think of a situation where diversity would be bad... anyone?

[Andy]

Well I suppose it'll likely be a bad thing if you're the first 'diversee' in a huge group of 'non-diversees'.
Sorry, I've reading the Bt/jargon thread.

[december]

<<In fact, I'm struggling to think of a situation where diversity would be bad... anyone?>>

As an aside, I dislike the use of the word "diversity" to mean merely diversity of race, sex, and sexual orientation. I would love to see real diversity of political opinion in college humanities departments.

Back to the question. Many women feel that they are better off at women's colleges. My wife got a fine education at one.

The success of Black colleges shows that they are also very worthwhile.

[tomndebb]

I would love to see real diversity of political opinion in college humanities departments. Why change a 750 year old tradition?

[Scylla]

james Carroll:

You wouldn't have a link to that court case, would you? I was under the impression that the FBI maintained a database of nearly ten million fingerprints, and that law enforcement agencies can send in a print, and have a computer search for a match.

It is also my understanding that that database has been used to study the diversity of fingerprints. The conclusion was that not only were all fingerprints unique, but that no two fingerprints shared more than seven poins of cosanguinity though there are thousands of potential points.

All you need is seven (iirc) to make a legal identification.

The uniqueness of fingerprints, and their use as indentification seems to me to be one of the more well-documented and studied facts.

So, if you have a reference for a court case that says otherwise, I'd love to see it.

[erislover]

Mangetout, the military doesn't exactly strive for intellectual integrity and difference. Since the footmen are only treated as chesspieces anyway, it makes no sense to have your pawn argue strategy with you.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by erislover
Mangetout, the military doesn't exactly strive for intellectual integrity and difference. Since the footmen are only treated as chesspieces anyway, it makes no sense to have your pawn argue strategy with you.

Ummm. Quite the contrary really. The whole point of the chain of command is to allow initiative where it's needed, and to create a flexible fighting force.

The reason things are divided up into squads, platoons, divisions, groups, etc. is so that there is a person responsible and charged with making tactical decisions at each and every level, from logistics, right on down to the individual infantry man.

Initiative and flexibility are very valuable leadership qualities, and the ability to think intelligently is a requisite survival trait on the battlefield.

[pldennison]

Here are some cites on the fingerprint ruling, which occurred earlier this year and was issued by U.S. District Judge Louis Pollak. According to the third cite, he ended up reversing his own decision:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/fingerprints020114.html

http://www.courttv.com/news/2002/0227/fingerprints_ap.html

http://www.truthinjustice.org/fingerprint-reverse.htm

[erislover]

Scylla, I don't beg to differ, but I do not feel you addressed my point. The military does not breed diversity, though it is flexible. The chain of command is such that one shouldn't disobey an order from a commanding officer. Such obedience does not breed diversity.

A pawn does not need to be intelligent to checkmate a king, it only needs to be told where to go.

[Scylla]

Thanks PLD:

From the third link:

"On further reflection, I disagree with myself," wrote Pollak, a former dean of Yale Law School.

I know what that feels like.


erislover:

Well, I don't want to make a major hijack of it, but I don't see what the ability to follow orders has to do with diversity.
It would seem to me that in the military you would want all kinds of diversity, that it would be good.

The exception of course being disobediance.

Why is that a negative against diversity? I like all kinds of food, but I don't like rotten food. When we're talking about diversity we're not talking about uncontrolled randomness necessarily are we?

Diversity is good in a stock portfolio, but you wouldn't want to intentionally diversify into equities that were about to go bankrupt.

It seems to me that the concept of beneficial diversity has implied limits, for food, soldiers, stock, or whatever, but that that's not a real argument against it, is it?

[erislover]

The question was whether diversity was ever not good. The answer is: yes. The military is one such example. I have no beef with diversity, but it only works where it works, and that is not in all affairs.

Does it turn out, then, that we agree?

[Scylla]

Erislover:

The question was whether diversity was ever not good. The answer is: yes. The military is one such example. Does it turn out, then, that we agree?

Not quite. I think you may be trying to wiggle where there's no room.

You're giving a specific example of negative desirability (i.e a disobediant soldier,) and from this trying to construe that diversity within the military is undesirable.

I point out that negativity isn't generally what is meant with diversity, i.e eating rotten food would not be considered diversifying, nor would purchasing stocks about to go bankrupt be considered diversifying, nor would sending an ill-trained (disobedient) soldier into battle be considered diversifying.

I challenge the basic premise of your example. A disobediant soldier would not be an example of diversity, but rather an example of bad training, or a bad soldier.

A bad anything is undesirable. There's nothing special about the military.

On the other hand, what you say in general may be taken for granted. While diversity is a generally a good thing, diversifying into only a lack of quality is inherently counterproductive in any endeavor.

[Homebrew]

Why is diversity good:

Chile Rellenos
fried rice.
Hefeweissen
Guinness
Italian Wine
French Wine
California Wine
New Zealand Wine
Samuel Smith's
Sierra Nevada Pale Ale
Sierra Nevada Porter
Anchor Steam
Pasta Carbonara
Fettucini Alfredo
Crawfish Etouffe
Lindt Chocolate
Chicken Fried Steak
Cheeseburgers
Corned beef
blintzes
cheesecake
torillas
Gyros
and on and on

[robertliguori]

Colleges discriminate of the basis to do well in school and pay thousands of dollars. We should eliminate these bigoted tendancies, to better prepare people for the Real World(tm).

(Psst. Do I need a smiley?)

[erislover]

Scylla, I see your objection, but I still feel that the military stifles diversity of opinion via the chain of command and order following. That is to say, the military is not a forum for dissent or opinion, and so does not allow the expression of dissent or opinion.

I agree that diversity for the sake of diversity is silly and not in the realm of the discussion. Perhaps I am not being contextual enough, but I fear that we will define diversity away, or at least make the word mean different things in different situations.

When I think of diversity, I think of freedom of religion, political parties, and so on. I do not consider criminals. Now, is there a way to consider the military diverse in such a manner? Or, if political alignment and religious opinion is an example of diversity in the broad conception of society, what would it mean in a specific construct within society? How would diversity manifest in the military?

If diversity is equated with the ability to choose and the responsibility to act on the choice, then there can be no counter-example to diversity: it is ubiquitous. Thus my concern of defining it away.

Perhaps I am quibbling needlessly.

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by Mangetout
Being able to cope in a culturally-diverse environment is fast becoming a positive survival trait, what with the whole global village thing.
Yeah, but how many people are going to get out of college, see a black man and say "Oh my God! A black man! I don't how to cope with this person, because my college didn't have any black people in it!" It's not like blacks are so different from whites that whites have to spend four years learning how to deal with them.

In a situation where there is no clearly defined 'right' or 'best',
But there are clear "right" and "best". Smart people are best.

In fact, I'm struggling to think of a situation where diversity would be bad... anyone?

-When trying to find matching socks.
-When buying tires (you wouldn't put a tire on your car that's a different size from the others just for the sake of "diversity", would you?)
-Chorus lines
-Stunt doubles (you don't want a guy to change shape from shot to shot)
-Protocols (if one computer is trying to use the telnet protocol, and another computer is expecting the gopher protocol, it's not going to work)

In fact, eliminating diversity in consumer products was one of major parts of the industrial revolution.


Originally posted by grendel72
First of all, going to a segregated (in any way) school doesn't prepare a student for the real world.
Why not? Most people aren't going to spend their lives in an environment that matches the ethnic make-up of their society. And most people aren't going to choose a major that reflects the ethnic make-up of their school. So what are you going to do? Provide incentives to students to choose a major in which they are underrepresented?

[delphica]

In terms of studies, Richard Light at Harvard U. recently published a book based on a study of undergraduates at several universities that represented a fairly broad range of educational models -- private, public, large, small, etc.

One of his results, although not the main point of the research, was that graduating students who "did well" (by the measurements of the college, for example, graduated in four years with a decent grade point average) cited "diversity of the student population" and "diversity of the faculty" as major contributing factors to their success at school. It should be noted that they were not prompted to answer "diversity" -- it was an open ended question, and did not include a list of answers to select from.

I grant you that there are about a million variables here -- the measurement of "doing well" is pretty vague, but at least we can take it to mean they didn't spent 7 years on an undergraduate degree, nor did they flunk out of school. Also, we have no real measurement of how diverse, or diverse in what way, the student populations actually were. We're probably talking about the perception of diversity here. But I think it supports what I hear anecdotally from students, that they consider diversity important, often important enough to factor into their college selection.

[Scylla]

erislover:

Well, diversity of opinion is welcome and wanted in the military. The chain of command works both ways. It's the foolish Captain or lieutenant indeed who does not seek input and advice from his sargents. The Sargents lseek input from their squad leaders, who in turn seek advice and input from their ASLs (assistant squad leaders.) It's true that it's assumed the rest of the squad is too stupid to communicate anything meaningful, but ideally the ASL will pick it up if a nugget of value surfaces. Majors listen to their Captain's. Colonel's listen to Majors and Generals listen to Colonels.

The idea is that there is supposed to be a flow of information and advice that goes both ways.

The rub is that the command structure is well-defined. That is, if your sargent tells you to dig a hole, you really can't refuse. In fact, the situations in which you can refuse an order from a superior are few.

But, most of the time, there's not a lot of micromanagement.

It's a lot like a corporation. Initiative and judgement within rigid parameters.

Certainly you don't think a Corporation seeks to stifle diversity.

Within a military task force, there is purposefully a lot of diversity, among skillsets and specialties with some having more initiative and control than others.

For example, on my father's firts tour of Vietnam as a recon Marine he was a Forward Observer. He would be taked with taking out certain targets. How he did it, was his judgement. He would choose his own location for a reconaissance point to view the target based on the situation. He would then perform calculations and direct fire from ships as much as 100 miles away. After each salvo he would correct until he hit the target. In such a circumstance, though my father was only a PFC at the time, he essentially commanded the actions of an entire battleship, which fired according to his direction.

The whole point of the command structure is to put the decision making ability in the hands of the person who needs to make the decisions, and to hold that person accountable for them.

Now sure, he had orders he had to follow, but the broad strokes of the tasks he had to perform were his to decide. My father was essentially his own man.

A fire team is completely different. Such an entity will consist of a group of individuals who strive to attack together in total harmony, like a football team. Their jobs and actions are highly regimented, but like a football player, he is expected to be flexible and react on his own initiative to a changing situation in concert with his fellows.

During his second tour as a Sniper, my father essentially lived seperately from the rest of the Marines in his group, moved seperately and acted almost entirely on his own initiative. He was not accountable to the lieutenant or sargent of a platoon he was tasked to support. It was assumed that he knew the limits and parameters of his job better than they, though they were in constant communication.

A flyer is a very different breed from a grunt.

Religious and personal beleifs are respected within the military with a few exceptions.

I would honestly say that diversity is the rule in the military.





On the other hand, I think I know what you are trying to talk about, and let me see if I can define it better. In many areas of the military standardization is something that is striven for. It is expected that a well-trained specialist will perform his task in identical fashion to another well-trained specialist.

But, I don't think it works as a negative towards diversity. Any well-trained specialist has his own style. For example, as a forward observer, my father chose not to carry a firearm under the belief that if he fired it while in hostile territory with people seeking him out, he might as well be shooting it at his own head. Other Forward Observers thought he was nuts.

My father also chose oddly in his observation locations. He tried to choose a location where he had a terrible view of the target, because the enemy would tend to search for him in locations that afforded a good view of the target. Instead he sought a post with an excellent view of a location at the same elevation and a defined distance from the target and a a poor secondary view of the target itself. He would direct the opening salvos at the location he had a good view of, and when he had that location boxed it was a simple calculation to redirect to the actual target.

Again, he did this on his own initiative and it was controversial, but it was his call. It was controversial because the theory was that by adding an extra variable it would take longer to take out the actual target increasing the danger of being discovered. My father disagreed and thought that the target of the opening salvos was moot, and that any delay would be justified by the better hiding spot which would enable him to be less likely to be discovered, thus increasing his chances of success.

That's just an example.

However, any time standards are needed diversity is a poor thing, and I think that's what you're getting at. For example the diversity among our standards of measurement here in the US is a major detriment. We don't need multiple standards and there is no advantage to having both a metric and an English system of measurement as anybody that owns a socket set will tell you. Nor does it help us to have both Farenheight and Celsius as measurement systems. Any time you are trying to judge something, diversity of methods is a negative. You want judgement to be standardized.

Is that what you going for?

[erislover]

However, any time standards are needed diversity is a poor thing, and I think that's what you're getting at.Very much so, and well said. When I see the military, I see a series of standards and manuals and handbooks and about piss-all room for individuality. However, your counterexample is well-noted.

[tomndebb]

Certainly you don't think a Corporation seeks to stifle diversity. Thanks for the heartiest laugh of my day.

[tracer]

So, what do fingerprints have to do with reverse discrimination, again?

[Brutus]

Diversity is good, so long as it is not forced.

[musicguy]

Originally posted by tracer
So, what do fingerprints have to do with reverse discrimination, again?

Glad I'm not the only one who has been wondering that :)

[Andy]

Originally posted by delphica
One of his results, although not the main point of the research, was that graduating students who "did well" (by the measurements of the college, for example, graduated in four years with a decent grade point average) cited "diversity of the student population" and "diversity of the faculty" as major contributing factors to their success at school. It should be noted that they were not prompted to answer "diversity" -- it was an open ended question, and did not include a list of answers to select from.
My feeling here is that there's no causal relationship between college diversity and student performance.
I do think that if you tell people enough times that diversity is good and important, they will start to believe it.
To me, diversity is just something which 'is'. It's neither desirable nor undesirable.
One more tangent and we should get back where the OP started.....;)

[Sparc]

In fact, eliminating diversity in consumer products was one of major parts of the industrial revolution.
...and putting the diversity and array of choice back into consumer products is one of the major parts of the information revolution.

[Lamia]

Originally posted by JamesCarroll

So my question is: Prove it. Are there any studies that prove that a diverse student body is better then one that isn't? How would people at some women's colleges or "traditionally African American" colleges respond?

Is there any reason why you specify women's colleges rather than same-sex colleges? There are still men's colleges in the US.

As a women's college student myself, I would venture to say that I am in a more diverse environment than I would be at most co-ed schools, as my school has an unusually high percentage of foreign students.

Traditionally African-American colleges are, surprisingly, predominantly African-American due only to tradition. Students from other ethnic backgrounds can attend these schools, and many have even received diversity scholarships.

[JamesCarroll]

Originally posted by tracer
So, what do fingerprints have to do with reverse discrimination, again?

Sorry I haven't been around lately. Darn that whole life thing. ;)

Thanks to pldennison for those links.

The reason I made the fingerprint reference was to give an example of a "foreone conclusion" that deserved a closer look. I linked that with the Diversity issue because of another case regarding the Univ. of Michigan law school could use "diversity" as a criteria for admission, as if "diversity" was a good thing with out the same kind of, at least, cursory scientific study as to how it effects the students, the school, and the (law) industry in general.

[JamesCarroll]

Originally posted by Lamia
[B]

Is there any reason why you specify women's colleges rather than same-sex colleges? There are still men's colleges in the US.


True, and I apologize. But show me a group of men clamoring to get into a "women-only" institution and I'll eat my hat.


As a women's college student myself, I would venture to say that I am in a more diverse environment than I would be at most co-ed schools, as my school has an unusually high percentage of foreign students.


But that's diversity of skin color and/or nationality, not ideas. Is there a "Right to Life" group on campus? How about "Gun Rights"? And if they exist are they vibrant communities or are they the "nut bags" on campus?

[Lamia]

Originally posted by JamesCarroll

True, and I apologize. But show me a group of men clamoring to get into a "women-only" institution and I'll eat my hat.


Come by the night of our big fall mixer, and you'll see plenty of men clamoring to get in.

As for men desperate to be students at a women's college, believe it or not men are already allowed to attend classes at many women's colleges. There are a few male students at my school every semester, mostly taking advantage of our excellent foreign language program. They cannot receive their degree from my school, but they can take any class they like and the credit can be applied towards a degree at another school.


But that's diversity of skin color and/or nationality, not ideas. Is there a "Right to Life" group on campus? How about "Gun Rights"? And if they exist are they vibrant communities or are they the "nut bags" on campus?

You are much mistaken if you do not think that diversity of nationality does not provide diversity of ideas. The rest of the world has not yet become quite so Americanized that foreigners cannot still offer different cultural perspectives.

In regards to "Right to Life" or "Gun Rights" groups, I am afraid the student body is not large enough to support such specialized organizations. There are student groups affiliated with the Democratic and Republican parties, but none devoted to specific political issues.

[waterj2]

I'm not sure the virtues of diversity can be measured scientifically. I would consider it a matter of the values one holds. Also, it depends on the sort of diversity being judged.

For example, I would consider it a good thing to be exposed to a variety of opinions and cultures. On the other hand, I think it would be silly for Harvard to diversify itself by accepting a certain number of complete and utter morons every year. But it would lead to a more useful experience, by my standards, for its students to be exposed to people of many different backgrounds.

Diversity is one of the main reasons I like living in the city. I simply think that my life is richer and more rewarding because of the variety of things I am exposed to.

[Belowjob]

A lot of what we call diversity is actually trivial. For example, an institution will call itself diverse because it's membership includes black Americans as well as white Americans. We like to imagine that the cultural divide between these groups is huge, but it's just not so. White southerners in particular have a great deal in common culturally with black Americans, from the food on the table to the Bible they read in church.

Real diversity would involve either one of these primarily Protestant, entirely English speaking peoples adjusting to people who didn't speak English, and didn't want to learn; or Islamic fundamentalists who refused to allow women out of the house, and imposed this rule on the rest of society. Conflict would ensue.
Real diversity often leads to conflict.

The diversity that you find in military is also largely trivial. The military imposes a huge amount of cultural conformity as standard procedure. Conformity in dress, in behavior, in living quarters, even in speech. Indicators of social status and corresponding annual income are literally worn on a soldier's sleeve. The military has dealt with cultural diversity by suppressing it, and replacing it with an official culture that only makes token recognition of ethnic differences.

A strictly enforced, rigid conformity is one of the most effective ways to defuse potential conflicts

[Walloon]

Originally posted by Lamia
Is there any reason why you specify women's colleges rather than same-sex colleges? There are still men's colleges in the US.

In 1965, there were 236 all-male colleges in the U.S. Today you can count on your thumbs the number of secular, four-year, all-male colleges unaffiliated with a female college:

Wabash College
Hampden-Sydney

[Lamia]

Originally posted by Walloon


In 1965, there were 236 all-male colleges in the U.S. Today you can count on your thumbs the number of secular, four-year, all-male colleges unaffiliated with a female college:

Wabash College
Hampden-Sydney

In 1960, there were 200 women's colleges in the US. By 1993, there were only 83 left. Most of them are affiliated with a church, with more being Catholic than Protestant. Many are also affiliated with a men's college, or a college that was a men's college at the time of the founding of its sister school. I couldn't tell you how many women's colleges do not fit these criteria, but there aren't many. There might be more than two, but there aren't a lot.

Of course, there are more American women's colleges than men's colleges in general, and for a very obvious reason. Most college aged men are unwilling to go to an all-male school, but a fair number of college aged women are willing to go to an all-female school.

[bizzwire]

Diversity has always seemed to me to be some sort of shibboleth that everyone pays lip service to and agrees that it is good, but it never seems to ever get defined; It's a synthetic, feel-good thing that will make everything well through a mechanism that has yet to be explained (to me, anyway).

I work in a pharmaceutical company in The People's Republic of Cambridge, MA. According to our HR department, we are highly committed to maintaining a diverse workplace, and they have been highly successful in nurturing a workforce which reflects the make-up of the local community, provided the community in question is Shanghai. There are a handful of African Americans, no Latinos to speak of (if you discount the cleaning crew), but a whole lot of newly-minted PhDs from Mainland China. Is this Diversity?