Posted on 01/21/2003 9:51:06 AM PST by Positive
I don't get it - President Bush says we need diversity - every politician says we need diversity - teachers - professors - deans and school boards say we need diversity.
I'm fairly informed about politics so there's no need to tell me that it's all hyperbole/rhetoric/disinformation etc. I'm actually trying to find out if there are really, literally some intrinsic benefits to "diversity" and what exactly are they?
The U of M and its liberal institutional cohorts mean that there should be a diversity of groups represented on campus, in the "correct" proportions. In other words, it's another way to describe racial quotas. And insofar as different groups are taken to represent different "cultures," it's a code word for multiculturalism, as many posters have pointed out.
I think that the administration means something quite different by "diversity." The brief criticizes UM for ignoring "background, academic performance, life experience, or overall contribution to the educational diversity of the student body" and supports "the requirement that all applicants be treated as individuals, not merely as members of a racial group."
This leads me to think that the Administration is talking about individual diversity: "It's a good thing if a student body includes individuals with many different kinds of life-experience." That is a defensible position, I think, on commonsense grounds. You do learn things you wouldn't otherwise know by discussing ideas or history or works of literature and art with people who have seen and done what you have not.
For example, since her name has been mentioned on this thread, a lot of whitebread liberals could learn something by listening to Condi Rice on gun control. This is not "because she's black" but because she had the experience of growing up in a community for which private gun ownership was crucial in defending the community from violence with which law enforcement was colluding.
Of course, being black had a lot to do with why she had that experience, but her contribution would not be a matter of "representing a group." She would bring a valuable "diversity" to such a discussion because she is a thoughtful and articulate individual who has seen the gun issue from a perspective which few of the Million Moms could imagine.
What this shows is that ethnic background is often a reason why individuals have significant experiences, but it does not follow that ethnic diversity pursued for its own sake will lead to individual diversity. On the other hand, it means that if you aim at individual diversity in a colorblind fashion, you will almost inevitably pick up ethnic diversity along the way.
The two most positive conservative articles I have seen on the Administration brief, by James Taranto and Bruce Fein, both argue that the brief describes racial diversity illegitimate as a goal in itself, and insists that race-neutral means towards individual diversity are available in abundance. I haven't had a chance to read the brief, but these two articles are an interesting counterweight to the scorn coming from other quarters.
On the other hand I agree so consistently with Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Clarence Thomas and Dinesh DeSouza each of whose “skin bag” is considerably darker than mine, that someone could say that there no diversity in that hypothetical group of five, save complexion.
Ummmm...Maybe knowledge is good? Maybe someone else has a better way of doing things? Maybe you can teach them a better way of doing things.
Of course, there are advantages to living under a rock too.
Point three: There is no virtue in diversity. A casual look at the world will tell anybody but an idiot that those countries with homogenous or nearly homogenous populations are stable, while those countries with diverse populations tend to be unstable. Which is more stable, Sweden or the Balkans? The Balkans are a perfect example of diversity in action. Diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds have produced some of the bitterest and bloodiest conflicts in Europe. Our own diversity has been the source of many conflicts - often bloody, and not a few based on race. The truth is that the human race is tribal. Tribes compete and often feud. The British built an empire playing one tribe against another. Only when the people of different tribes can unite with some higher set of ideals and ideas that override their tribal differences can there be peace and strength. In short, we ought to be constantly preaching assimilation, not diversity. Diversity will kill us; assimilation will make us strong.
You are entirely correct,and I fully agree.I was thinking(and rather narrowly I admit)how much the Gov't interferes in my life. Having travelled to a fair number of countries (for work and play),that certainly opened up my eyes to how interestingly different (and similar) various cultures are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.