Who decides what “diversity” is the right “diversity?”

Great Debates
1

There may be too much diversity out there for us to handle. Someone has to trim the list. After reading some of the posts at Straightdope for the past few months - I vote for me. So I’m the new Minister of Diversity. You, the reader, can be my Deputy.

** Initial Considerations **

As the new Minister of Diversity the first question to ask and answer is - whose diversity and what sort of diversity are we discussing? Are we talking ‘different looking’ faces here or ‘different looking’ ideas – or both.

There is certainly ‘bad diversity’ and ‘good diversity.’ Who gets to decide which is bad and which is good? You? Me? Everybody!!! I think we might make different choices on which diversity to support – in some instances. I mean, should certain ‘block-headed ideas’ get equal time in a school’s curriculum? Sorry, I don’t want the Professor of Bigfoot Studies teaching core courses at my school. But even more serious - should Hitler style “dangerous ideas?” Should all this variety receive equal voice in the decisions of our major corporations? Equal voice time at a Town meeting? Equal tolerance when the voice is intolerant? Should Creation Science see course time with Evolution, Social Darwinism and theories of supreme races? Do we have all the time needed to entertain these ‘diverse ideas?’ Even if we have the time do we want to?

SOME of us could probably agree on which ideas deserve to be weeded and which don’t - for the most part. But is THAT ‘diversity?’ Shouldn’t we let every voice ‘decide’ which ideas are the dangerous ‘block-headed’ ones? ---- otherwise the spirit of diversity is lost – Wait! Does this put us back where we came from. The same ‘intolerance’ we want weeded out -

Here’s my first proposal as the new Minister of Diversity. Granted, it’s a little rough but I’m new on the job. I will need your input as by new Deputy –
PROPOSAL FROM THE OFFICE OF THE MINISTER OF DIVERSITY

  1. No school quotas based on physical appearances!

Rationale: Are there any other reasons for this call for ‘diversity’ than he or she looks different. If so, use that as the criterion. In addition, it appears that we are now limiting this to just some physical appearances and leaving the others out? Why Deputy? Get on this one. What about those unfortunates who act a little odd? Or act a lot of odd. Can’t the same exact case be made for them? I have a personal interest in both as you see –— and I suffer — I mean I really suffer in our discriminating culture. People don’t like my odd looks or my odd behavior. So get me into Michigan Law School NOW – that’ll solve my problems!

  1. No diversity based on membership in a small group.

Rationale: Don’t you see that we’re ALL small groups - if you want to argue it that way. I’m a guy who grew up in a military family, dad from the mountains of Georgia and mom from a pee-wee little town in Mississippi and I — I never established roots as I grew up. Where are the people who understand me? The people who have my history and who hold my values? Or, are we really just a big oppressive western culture – I mean when it suits us to argue it that way. As you can see Deputy, I’m not only a little odd a little ugly – I’m a member of a minority.

What about a school that admits students based on the ‘Aryan look?’ Certainly that’s a “smaller group” within a much bigger group and culture. They’re certainly a sub-culture that is looked on with disfavor. This discrimination is certainly a disadvantage to the Aryans and their Nation. Clearly, there must be a better way to determine ‘good diversity’ than membership in a small group. I want a memo.

  1. Diversity should be based on strong conservative values.

Rationale: Clearly, the diversity liberals want to ‘keep out’ and the diversity liberals want to ‘keep in’ is different from the styles of ‘diversity’ I favor. ‘Good diversity’ to a liberal can be my ‘bad diversity’ and my good could be their bad. Deputy, could we use the liberal idea of post-modernism to confuse those who oppose us? Memo please.

  1. Some diversity is called ‘bad’ when it is really ‘good.’

Rationale: Keeping my western ‘good ideas’ from ‘other’ cultures as a means to help ensure their continued ‘purity’ is my idea of continuing their continued stagnation, their religious oppression, China’s infanticide, the suppression of women in the Moslem world and Africa’s ‘bad practices’ leading to shortened life expectancies. Hey, I want my western ideas there — don’t want those ideas and practices to continue.

In addition, if another culture wants McDonald’s on every corner those who live in that culture can certainly decide that issue with their pocketbooks. They do not need those from this office, the Office of the Minister of Diversity, telling them want is good or bad for their continued cultural purity.

DATED: April 22, 2003

Tigers2B1, Jr.
Minister of Diversity

2

And the debate would be… what, exactly? I think you lost a lot of people with, um, your creative writing style.

If we go by the title of this thread, I’d answer “the community.” But without more specifics, that’s the best answer I can give, IMHO.

Esprix

3

Good diversity if taken as a whole, does more good than harm.

Inversely, Bad diversity does more harm than good.

Ideal diversity does no harm but all good. This takes the best of the parts for the benefit of the whole. This is a fantasy and best intentions do not make this work. Most times, the best of the parts conflict with each other which can never be good.

Who determines which diversity is the right diversity? the one in charge of putting all the parts together. He (or she or they) decides if adding a component adds to benefit of the whole or is detrimental to its function.

4

Sorry about the style here – I guess it’s true that one beer makes me smile, two make me “creative,” three make me Superman and six provide the self-esteem needed to talk to women. I’m working to reduce that last one -

Back to the OP. What I’m hearing so far is that the ‘inherent goodness’ of ‘diversity’ has been a canard all along. Good diversity is what those in power say it means. If ‘good diversity’ isn’t something we can agree on like the idea that ‘murder is bad’ - why should anybody that didn’t have a voice in the current definition work for the idea. Is ‘good diversity’ really like pornography – left to ‘community standards?’ The University of Michigan’s diversity is different than the University of Mississippi’s? Something is rotten in Denmark -

5

From what I understand, the “goodness” inherent in diversity comes from the different cultural viewpoints intermingling- the “melting pot” in other words.

Unfortunately, society has decided that the easiest way to get that diversity is to base it on skin color. All other factors are irrelevant.

Example: I recall seeing a minority scholarship application recently that listed several examples of who would and wouldn’t be eligible for the scholarship. I can’t remember which this is, but I’m sure I could dig it up if people here care. All minorities were eligible, btw. Several of the ineligible examples went like this:

“Mark’s great grandparents all moved from the united states into mexico. Mark moved back into the united states and applied for and received US citizenship. Mark, however, is still ineligible.”

“Susan has just immigrated from south africa. However, her entire family consists of white south africans, therefore Susan is not Black and is not eligible for this scholarship.”

Sent a pretty strong message to me that regardless of what cultural upbringings one may have, “diversity” is still undeniably rooted in race.

6

Assuming you’re quoting the Blues Brothers, you made me laugh.

If you weren’t, I laughed anyway, under the assumption that you were.

7

Who decides which is the proper sort of diversity? Why, the Democrats, of course! :wink:

Seriously, diversity of anything other than ideas is completely useless, all things being equal. Having a student body, for example, that “looks like America” (what, the student body looks like a large vaguely turkey-shaped landmass?) but in which everyone thinks like Noam Chomsky isn’t a good thing, yet that’s the type of “diversity” that typically gets hocked by… umm… well, by those that hock diversity. Diversity of ideas is more useful, but also more difficult to select for. And anyway, a diversity of ideas in and of itself isn’t necessarily good, either. Do you really want a group of, say, physicists who have a wide range of ideas on what Newton’s laws say? (“Newton’s Second Law: You can make a really tasty cookie out of a fig.”)

In some cases, you can select for diversity of ideas fairly easily. In my industry, you can try to hire artists with a variety of styles, and people with differing opinions on what makes a great video game. Good diversity. But what about things like, to throw out a pertinent example, state universities - particularly ones where not every student gets interviewed? How do you get a good idea of a person’s “idea set” based on their GPA, SAT scores, and a one-page essay? Short answer: you don’t, really. Not with any degree of accuracy. And if you can’t achieve anything more than token diversity of appearance, then what’s the point of trying?

So, who should decide what the “right” diversity is? Nobody. Just work on assuring equality of opportunity, and stop trying to implement equality of outcome. If equality of outcome is the right thing to happen, then it’ll follow equality of opportunity on its own.
Jeff

8

Well, I get the meaning from Tigers2B1 right, “good Diversity” really depends on what that diversity is applied to.

If diversity is applied to laws and social imteraction, then the people decide what is good or bad. They are the immediate benefactors and contributors to a diversity of cultural moirees that may (or may not) help the whole be better.

If diversity is applied to economic and marketing situations, then the captains of industry determine what diversity is best for the consumer who may have some feedback as to the application of certain diversifications of the products they consume.

If diversity is applied to dogmas and authoritarian values, then the leaders and conceptualizers of the law are to determine what good (or bad) can the interjection of certain parts of a diversified whole can better benefit society. The masses are studied but not consulted as to the end result of their experimention.

9

Good diversity in schools=diversity of ideas
Good diversity in a business=whatever mixture of people produces the most profits.

10

Every university
Claims to want diversity.
But, not in terms of how we think
Just whether skin is brown or pink.

11

Um, what about things like gender, veteran status, relationship status, sexual orientation, and all the other things diversity is supposed to encompass? I’ve never seen it as a strictly racial thing.

Esprix

12

I like that.

no, really. It was cute. very nice. :slight_smile:

13

Thank you.

14

“Um, what about things like gender, veteran status, relationship status, sexual orientation, and all the other things diversity is supposed to encompass? I’ve never seen it as a strictly racial thing.”

I’m all for expanding the concept of Diversity. In fact let’s not stop there. We could expand it enough so that each 260 odd million of us is in a seperate category. Then we can enact a law to ensure that each category is enshrined as a protected minority.

15

“Diversity” started with race. Then everyone else who felt maligned chimed in, “Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!” Now “diversity” encompasses pretty much anyone who’s not a heterosexual white male yuppie. I remember a line from King of the Hill, one of the few funny lines in the entire show: “Why am I not allowed to hate a man unless he’s white?”

16

Gee, thanks for trivializing those people who have been systematically discriminated against for decades, if not centuries. Most appreciated.

:rolleyes:

Esprix

17

Esprix: Pardon me for advocating the concept of individual rights as enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. It is the “diversity” advocates who often trivialize those unique documents. And for what it’s worth, nothing in my post trivialized the real suffuring anyone has experienced. Have a great day.

18

“Individual rights” meaning the right for people to discriminate? What about the individual right to be treated equally? Last time I checked, that was covered - quite specifically - under the Constitution.

Esprix

19

Diversity advocates are not in the business of treating people equally. They are in the business of giving preferential treatment to certain groups.

I do not support the right of the gov’t to discrimiate. I do support the right of every individual to be treated equally. Do we have anything to argue about then?

BTW, I did not mean my first post to be directed AT your post. I just used yours as a jumping off point. Just wanted to make that clear.

20

Please expound.

Perhaps over the implementation of anti-discrimination laws? It sounds like we probably disagree on that.

Esprix