There is no empirical evidence that “diversity” provides any benefit to any group.
On the contrary, the only study that I’m aware of on this topic showed the opposite - people don’t trust each other, get less done, develop less “social capital”, etc.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
Clarence Thomas attests to that in his book. When he tried to get a job in the real world, he found that a black man's law degree meant nothing because it was assumed that he didn't earn it, but was granted it on the basis of race.
Diversity has become a state religion in America and we're expected to worship it. If we notice all the negatives, we're to overlook them as some sort of necessary religious pennance.
Meanwhile, my open challenge here stands. Can anyone tell me how Japan would benefit if it imported 25 million Arabs, Somalis, and Mexicans? That would certainly diversify the country, so if diversity is a strength I'd like to hear all the glorious benefits Japan would reap with those additional 25 million diversity bonus points living there.
The term "diversity" arose when quotas became a dirty word. Like the word progressive to describe themselves now, libs always find a way around thorny areas. We don't want quotas they blather, they simply want "diversity." And quit being a racist for pointing out the truth you nasty, evil conservative. (smirk)
Sort of off topic, but still dealing with, as you say, "social capital". I was thinking about this the other day in relation to the upheaval which may occur in neighborhoods as a result of the "bust" in the housing market. Instead of a slow change in neighbors over many years, the people in a neighborhood could change over months. I'm not saying in a racial sense, just that the neighbors will more likely to be strangers to each other, and therefore, less trusting. I don't think that is good for a community. Of course my mind went on to ponder the thought of us entering another Dark Ages as a result....