Diversity

[Marvin the Martian]

CO thought the concept of societal diversity is a plus or minus could be its own thread, so here it is. I observed that Norway has 1 in 6 that are first or second generation immigrants. Yet we tend to think of Norway as homogenous. I noted conservatives often point to diversity as a weakness that Scandinavia and Japan do not have.

I would love to start explaining why I do not accept that (Mexican food and Vulcan IDIC being two), but I have to leave for PT and will join later. I just wanted to start the thread while I thought of it. Is diversity a weakness or strength, and why?

 

[iu_a_att]

Let me give Co a helping hand to make things interesting. There is strong evidence that people are homophillic
i.e., they prefer to associate with those who they perceive to be like them.
On the other hand if people are homophiles why the strong preference for living in cities? http://www.prb.org/Publications/Lesson-Plans/HumanPopulation/Urbanization.aspx
The fraction of people living in cities in 1800 was 3%. The fraction expected to live in cities by 2050 is 80%. Cities are obviously much more diverse than the rural areas people are migrating from. What explains the seeming contradictory findings of a preference for homophily on the one hand and a growing preference for social intercourse with people who are different on the other hand? The answer seems to be people would rather trade with people who are different more than restrict intercourse only to those who are like them. In short the economic benefits of living with diversity dominate the desire for homophily.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

If the debate is cultural diversity, the US is less diverse than we think for example, Belgium and Switzerland are more diverse. Wiki also has a second scale showing Canada as more diverse. On both scales, North Korea is one of the least diverse countries.

I am not entirely getting why diversity is bad. I guess it is if we assume intolerance as normal to the human condition but I do not.

Since I have seen this issue come up in healthcare, why is diversity a cause of America paying more for healthcare?

We know in genetics there are huge advantages to diversity. Why do these not carry over?

Is there an issue with diversity, or with tolerance?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Let me give Co a helping hand to make things interesting. There is strong evidence that people are homophillic
i.e., they prefer to associate with those who they perceive to be like them.
On the other hand if people are homophiles why the strong preference for living in cities? http://www.prb.org/Publications/Lesson-Plans/HumanPopulation/Urbanization.aspx
The fraction of people living in cities in 1800 was 3%. The fraction expected to live in cities by 2050 is 80%. Cities are obviously much more diverse than the rural areas people are migrating from. What explains the seeming contradictory findings of a preference for homophily on the one hand and a growing preference for social intercourse with people who are different on the other hand? The answer seems to be people would rather trade with people who are different more than restrict intercourse only to those who are like them. In short the economic benefits of living with diversity dominate the desire for homophily.

Could it be people are homophillic until they are not? Once forced together they get along ok.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

CO thought the concept of societal diversity is a plus or minus could be its own thread, so here it is. I observed that Norway has 1 in 6 that are first or second generation immigrants. Yet we tend to think of Norway as homogenous. I noted conservatives often point to diversity as a weakness that Scandinavia and Japan do not have.

I would love to start explaining why I do not accept that (Mexican food and Vulcan IDIC being two), but I have to leave for PT and will join later. I just wanted to start the thread while I thought of it. Is diversity a weakness or strength, and why?

It depends on the context, I suppose.

In terms of a business, I'd say that, on its own, diversity is neither a strength nor a weakness. I want the best people we can get for the particular needs we have. How those people stack up in terms of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc. is probably not of any consequence. Now, I can see where some organizations would have particular needs that call for people who meet certain superficial criteria. That's why I'd say that context matters.

Think of a football team in terms of race or ethnicity. Should a team care if the best players it can find to meet the needs it has are black, white, Latino, or otherwise? Or do they simply care if they're the best ones available? Would the team be better if they had a certain mix? Worse?

I'd say that it's of no consequence. When Nick Saban put Tua Tagovailoa in at QB at halftime, I'm about 100% certain that what he had in mind was "Tua's a better passer than Jalen Hurts is and we need to be passing to win this game" not "Tua's a Polynesian and they really weren't well represented out there in the first half."

In terms of an entire society (and I know that's what you were asking about), that's a different question. I'd have to give it some thought.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

It depends on the context, I suppose.

In terms of a business, I'd say that, on its own, diversity is neither a strength nor a weakness. I want the best people we can get for the particular needs we have. How those people stack up in terms of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc. is probably not of any consequence. Now, I can see where some organizations would have particular needs that call for people who meet certain superficial criteria. That's why I'd say that context matters.

Think of a football team in terms of race or ethnicity. Should a team care if the best players it can find to meet the needs it has are black, white, Latino, or otherwise? Or do they simply care if they're the best ones available? Would the team be better if they had a certain mix? Worse?

I'd say that it's of no consequence. When Nick Saban put Tua Tagovailoa in at QB at halftime, I'm about 100% certain that what he had in mind was "Tua's a better passer than Jalen Hurts is and we need to be passing to win this game" not "Tua's a Polynesian and they really weren't well represented out there in the first half."

In terms of an entire society (and I know that's what you were asking about), that's a different question. I'd have to give it some thought.

For most jobs, I am not sure diversity matters, until it does. If I need to hire a roofer, I am mot sure I need to think of racial/ethnic benefits.

On the other hand, as the NFL found out it becomes an issue when 100 coaches are hired and all are white. There is no reason to believe only whites can be successful in that, so there was a problem (leading to the Rooney Rule).

But let me suggest this, if I wanted to start a marketing campaign to reach residents of NYC, Opie Taylor from Mayberry may not be the best choice? If I am wanting to make a tourism movie for rural Georgia, Spike Lee just may not be the right choice.

I am just not sure why living in a city that has Caucasians, Latinos, African-Americans, and Asians spells doom. What makes that a bad place to live compared to all- of one kind?

 

[Fro]

This quote from J Irwin Miller (basically the founder of Cummins as we know it) makes a good business case for it

In the search for character and commitment, we must rid ourselves of our inherited, even cherished biases and prejudices. Character, ability and intelligence are not concentrated in one sex over the other, nor in persons with certain accents or in certain races or in persons holding degrees from some universities over others. When we indulge ourselves in such irrational prejudices, we damage ourselves most of all and ultimately assure ourselves of failure in competition with those more open and less biased.

I think you should pick the best and most-qualified candidates, but diversity should be a tiebreaker if it's close.

It's important for HR to be diverse and that takes care of a lot of the problems on its own.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

For most jobs, I am not sure diversity matters, until it does. If I need to hire a roofer, I am mot sure I need to think of racial/ethnic benefits.

On the other hand, as the NFL found out it becomes an issue when 100 coaches are hired and all are white. There is no reason to believe only whites can be successful in that, so there was a problem (leading to the Rooney Rule).

But let me suggest this, if I wanted to start a marketing campaign to reach residents of NYC, Opie Taylor from Mayberry may not be the best choice? If I am wanting to make a tourism movie for rural Georgia, Spike Lee just may not be the right choice.

I am just not sure why living in a city that has Caucasians, Latinos, African-Americans, and Asians spells doom. What makes that a bad place to live compared to all- of one kind?

I certainly wouldn't say there's any reason to believe that only whites can be successful football coaches. In no way should NFL coaching jobs be racially exclusionary. But I'm not a fan of the Rooney Rule.

Would the NFL institute a similar rule for, say, runningbacks? I seriously doubt it. Could you imagine if they did?

I don't think the league has to have any such rules in place to ensure that teams are signing, playing, hiring, etc. the best people they can get for every position they have available -- on the field, on the sideline, in the front office, etc.

Put another way, the Colts didn't hire Tony Dungy to satisfy the Rooney Rule. They hired Tony Dungy because everyone around the league knew he was a terrific coach and that the Bucs were dumb to let him go. His race was, as it should be, immaterial.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It depends on the context, I suppose.

In terms of a business, I'd say that, on its own, diversity is neither a strength nor a weakness. I want the best people we can get for the particular needs we have. How those people stack up in terms of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc. is probably not of any consequence. Now, I can see where some organizations would have particular needs that call for people who meet certain superficial criteria. That's why I'd say that context matters.

Think of a football team in terms of race or ethnicity. Should a team care if the best players it can find to meet the needs it has are black, white, Latino, or otherwise? Or do they simply care if they're the best ones available? Would the team be better if they had a certain mix? Worse?

I'd say that it's of no consequence. When Nick Saban put Tua Tagovailoa in at QB at halftime, I'm about 100% certain that what he had in mind was "Tua's a better passer than Jalen Hurts is and we need to be passing to win this game" not "Tua's a Polynesian and they really weren't well represented out there in the first half."

In terms of an entire society (and I know that's what you were asking about), that's a different question. I'd have to give it some thought.

This is an excellent topic for MLK day.

I have a dream that my four littlechildren will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
​

It looks like we can file this quote in the "fat chance" file. Nowadays skin color is a very important consideration in everything we do, say, and believe.

For this discussion I treat "diversity" and "differences" pretty much the same. People are different in immutable characteristics and in ideas, culture, beliefs and religion. We seem to go out of our way to find differences, magnify them, and use differences to hate, disparage, belittle, and destroy, other people. And that's on a good day. On the bad days we bomb, maim, shoot, and murder others because they are different.

These differences drive almost everything we do and everything that happens in the world today.

Just in recent months . . . .

Trump talks about shitholes and Norway
Pelosi criticizes immigration reform because white guys proposed it
A Muslim runs down bicyclists in New York City
The shooting war in Afghanistan goes on
The world goes nuts over the US moving the Israeli embassy
Catalonia holds a referendum on separating from Spain
California wishes it could hold a referendum on separating from the US,
"Me too" is ramping into an anti-men effort in some quarters,
Blacks want separate commencement ceremonies at some Ivy League schools,
and more and more see the American Flag, a prominent and proud unifying symbol in many Martin Luther King's civil rights marches, as a sign of oppression and racism.

In recent years diversity has put the EU under stress, Belgium talks about dividing, Scotland held a withdrawal vote, Israel is still not recognized by neighbors, Jew hatred once again raises its ugly head in Europe, and every policy initiative in the US seems to be measured in terms of victims and perpetrators, winners and losers, men and women, blacks and whites.

Why? This isn't about money or wealth, or the things that they buy. The intolerance about differences is about a more base human motivation that either money or wealth. It's about power, influence and control over people who are different than me. Our side must win. Our side must dominate. Others who are different or think different things are beneath us.

Diversity doesn't have to be this way. Chess is played with white and black pieces. But it is played with established rules, accpeted decorum, and acceptance of the results. We are losing the ability to play by the rules, to be civil, and to accept a result.

 

[zeke4ahs]

This quote from J Irwin Miller (basically the founder of Cummins as we know it) makes a good business case for it



I think you should pick the best and most-qualified candidates, but diversity should be a tiebreaker if it's close.

It's important for HR to be diverse and that takes care of a lot of the problems on its own.

Agree. Just like Mark Cuban said about Yogi. He wouldn't pick an IU player just to pick one, but Yogi going to IU was a tiebreaker and it worked out pretty well for all.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Diversity doesn't have to be this way. Chess is played with white and black pieces. But it is played with established rules, accpeted decorum, and acceptance of the results. We are losing the ability to play by the rules, to be civil, and to accept a result.

If chess were life, don't you think the pawns might get tired of the way the rules were written? Maybe an anti-pawn bias?

We had rules but we know many of those rules were written with bias. Giving legal advantages to marries people while preventing gays from marrying was one very recent example.

Right now we are sorting all this out. There are battles on how the new rules will work. The new rules will not be unilaterally determined by white men. I think we will get through it fine. But it is true that we white males will no longer be able to write rules to benefit our king position. The pawns and other pieces must be considered.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

If chess were life, don't you think the pawns might get tired of the way the rules were written? Maybe an anti-pawn bias?

We had rules but we know many of those rules were written with bias. Giving legal advantages to marries people while preventing gays from marrying was one very recent example.

Right now we are sorting all this out. There are battles on how the new rules will work. The new rules will not be unilaterally determined by white men. I think we will get through it fine. But it is true that we white males will no longer be able to write rules to benefit our king position. The pawns and other pieces must be considered.

Ha. Pawns can become a queen. There is always hope.

Seriously, I don’t think what you said detracts from my point at all. We have made outstanding progress with civil rights here. That has by in large within rules and established decorum and acceptance of change. But it seems we have now trivialized the issue with micro aggressions, triggers, and other things that just a few years ago were not an issue. It seems now we are searching for a cause even though the cause that is made up or doesn’t matter. We are losing coping skills. We need reasons to belittle others to make ourselves look good.

 

[hoosboot]

If chess were life, don't you think the pawns might get tired of the way the rules were written? Maybe an anti-pawn bias?

We had rules but we know many of those rules were written with bias. Giving legal advantages to marries people while preventing gays from marrying was one very recent example.

Right now we are sorting all this out. There are battles on how the new rules will work. The new rules will not be unilaterally determined by white men. I think we will get through it fine. But it is true that we white males will no longer be able to write rules to benefit our king position. The pawns and other pieces must be considered.

Hear that.

I think that people mostly talk about diversity wrong. Whether it's in business, in school, in communities, or in social settings, people benefit from being around different kinds of people, different points of view, different socio-economic backgrounds, different cultural influences...you know...differences. They broaden are horizons, strengthen our views, and deepen our understanding of the world. Sometimes that diversity manifests itself in race or culture or sex or sexual orientation or birthplace or upbringing, but wherever it is rooted, that diversity has the power to enrich our lives. The problems mostly result from people being unable to deal with it.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Ha. Pawns can become a queen. There is always hope.

That is true, and right now many are willing to have the 90%+ attrition rate to become a queen. But a growing number wonder if that is real hope or an illusion.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

That is true, and right now many are willing to have the 90%+ attrition rate to become a queen. But a growing number wonder if that is real hope or an illusion.

Hm. The missing part of this discussion is the reason people have no hope or think achieving is not for them. That is a different discussion. People have come to believe they are not supposed to have hope. I don’t think Ben Carson is a fluke. We are wasting vast swaths of humanity because of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The bigotry of low expectations.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Hear that.

I think that people mostly talk about diversity wrong. Whether it's in business, in school, in communities, or in social settings, people benefit from being around different kinds of people, different points of view, different socio-economic backgrounds, different cultural influences...you know...differences. They broaden are horizons, strengthen our views, and deepen our understanding of the world. Sometimes that diversity manifests itself in race or culture or sex or sexual orientation or birthplace or upbringing, but wherever it is rooted, that diversity has the power to enrich our lives. The problems mostly result from people being unable to deal with it.

I’ve benefited enormously from partners, colleagues, and clients smarter than me, or those with more and different experiences from me. But to say this is because people have different skin colors or sexual orientation not only is unimportant but places too much of a burden on people with those immutable characteristics. Smart capable people are important regardless of skin color or sexual orientation. That said, one of the smartest and clearest thinking people I know is my female partner.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Hm. The missing part of this discussion is the reason people have no hope or think achieving is not for them. That is a different discussion. People have come to believe they are not supposed to have hope. I don’t think Ben Carson is a fluke. We are wasting vast swaths of humanity because of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The bigotry of low expectations.

I will agree that there are such problems in poor areas, I saw it first hand. Bit it goes beyond that. Two kids get arrested for some stupid prank crime. The wealthy kid bails out, gets a lawyer, and probably gets pre trial diversion. The poor kid cannot post bail and spends 8 months in jail and their public defender gets them a time served conviction. That is just one easy example, there are plenty of others.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

@Marvin the Martian - to answer your original question, yes, diversity is a positive. In a work environment, diverse teams tend to be more productive and better at solving problems. In a social environment, I believe it's been brought up by someone here before that people living in diverse areas tend to be less anti-social.

I think the problem here is that too many people jump from "diversity is positive" to "uh oh, here comes affirmative action." Several posts have highlighted the desire to "hire the right person for the job," regardless of any cultural or identity characteristics. Good. That's smart hiring. But promoting diversity the right way doesn't have to involve ever choosing a minority candidate over someone else more qualified. The goal should be to increase the diversity of people applying for jobs in your organization, and then still pick the best applicant for the job. If you notice you are sorely lacking in youth, set up booths at college job fairs. Need some ethnic diversity? Go to urban placement centers. You put the opportunity in front of more people, and then you still hire the best person for the job, but you'll naturally build a more diverse workforce, because your applicant pool will be more diverse.

Someone above mentioned (and misapplied) the Rooney Rule. The Rooney Rule is a perfect example of a good diversity promotion technique. It doesn't force anyone to hire minority candidates; rather it simply causes more of them to be looked at. Teams are still going to hire the person they think is the best coach or GM for their opening, but the total pool of potential hires is gradually being enlarged and made more diverse.

 

[sglowrider]

Being a minority, I think I add value to some perspective other than my obvious disdain for Trump.

My life experiences are different from the majority of you here. Therefore, by just bring some small level of awareness of an alternative perspective. In that small little contribution, at least I serve a purpose -- a different, diverse view.

Where I purport similar views, at least it will illustrate that most humans are very, very similar in what we want in life. That bridges the perception that different races are very different -- but skin tone is what it is, superficial.
As I had said once to our resident Accuro, with my experience of living in three continents, four countries; working off 20+ countries now, my conclusion is that most humans are very similar. But the fault lies in focusing at looking at the differences, that 10-20% difference (like food, religion, language) rather than the 80-90% similarities.

But this is just how we are built.

Our personal development journey; our life passages, whether intentionally or unintentionally we seek.

We need to find our identity, community and then, purpose.

If we have a diversity of sorts, we get discombobulated and then it throws us off that simplified life passage and therefore our comfort zone that has been determined/shaped by family, friends or environment.
A threat to finding each or any of the life phases, to 'traditions.

But if we dont get thrown off our respective comfort zones, we also know deep down, gnawing inside all of us, that we need to be stretched, pushed, knowing that there is more to life than what we just today.

The secure ones will embrace this unease to seek further. The less secure ones will fight this and perceive it as a threat to their way of life.
I believe that before all of us close our eyes permanently, we will do a micro-second self-reflective audit of our entire life in its most honest form.
That question will be related to how we have lived our lives -- and it will go beyond providing for your kids if you have any.

Did you make the most of your life?

That's where some diversity helps to make some difference -- it pushes you outside your comfort zone; to experience/learn and inject something different to maximise your life experiences and contribute answering that final question you will ask yourself.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

That's where some diversity helps to make some difference -- it pushes you outside your comfort zone;

I’ve thought about this point for a while and I have to say I don’t get it. I heartily agree that going outside one’s comfort zone is vital to a full and satisfying life. But I don’t see how diversity helps that. Frankly, I think comfort zones are mostly subjective and a product of your own mind.

First we must understand what the comfort zone even is. I’d say it’s life without challenges. Accepting and overcoming challenges is outside our comfort zone. If your point is that associating with people who are different is out side of our comfort zone I think you are wrong. As you noted, we are more alike than different. I don’t view differences in people as a comfort zone issue. But I will acknowledge what people do, or sometimes what they say, could present a challenge.

 

[iu_a_att]

I’ve thought about this point for a while and I have to say I don’t get it. I heartily agree that going outside one’s comfort zone is vital to a full and satisfying life. But I don’t see how diversity helps that. Frankly, I think comfort zones are mostly subjective and a product of your own mind.

First we must understand what the comfort zone even is. I’d say it’s life without challenges. Accepting and overcoming challenges is outside our comfort zone. If your point is that associating with people who are different is out side of our comfort zone I think you are wrong. As you noted, we are more alike than different. I don’t view differences in people as a comfort zone issue. But I will acknowledge what people do, or sometimes what they say, could present a challenge.

One way to look at this question is to ask what we see through introspection. Another way might be to look at actual research...ever hear of google scholar? Basically there is a good deal of evidence that all kinds of diversity including cultural diversity has positive benefits. Moreover, some of the areas (e.g., increased civil strife) in which you might expect diversity to be problematic are not so clear cut.

Here are some results from googling "economic value of diversity"
https://academic.oup.com/joeg/article/6/1/9/1056407
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6288.00034/full
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10887-016-9127-6

Here are some results from googling "diversity in teams"
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/jibs.2009.85
http://amp.aom.org/content/21/4/6.short
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16385.short

some articles on civil war and ethnic diversity
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...nd-civil-war/B1D5D0E7C782483C5D7E102A61AD6605

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Basically there is a good deal of evidence that all kinds of diversity including cultural diversity has positive benefits.

Agree.

My comments were confined to the proposition that diversity pushes one outside of their comfort zone. I still don't get this and your links are not on point. To put this another way, people might, for various reasons, push me out of my personal comfort zone. But those reasons would not include their race, culture, or sex.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Agree.

My comments were confined to the proposition that diversity pushes one outside of their comfort zone. I still don't get this and your links are not on point. To put this another way, people might, for various reasons, push me out of my personal comfort zone. But those reasons would not include their race, culture, or sex.

My youngest had to attend many different religious services as part of her confirmation. One place we attended was one of the traditionally black churches. This product of generations of British "stiff upper lip" was certainly out of his comfort zone 1) being the only whites in a building of a couple hundred and 2) in a much more interactive worship than i would prefer.

There has been a series on called Better Late Than Never, I found it historical. William Shatner, Henry Winkler, Terry Bradshaw, and George Foreman toured Europe (last season was Asia). One set of continuing remarks from all of them was how going into these countries and immersing themselves in the culture was getting them out of their comfort zones. None had done much international travel.

As an aside, Winkler's parents fled Nazi Germany. His uncle opted at the last minute to stay 1 more day to conduct a piece of business, was arrested that night and died in the concentration camp. The series also had its poignant moments.

 

[IUCrazy2]

[QUOTE="CO. Hoosier, post: 2314043, member: Diversity doesn't have to be this way. Chess is played with white and black pieces. But it is played with established rules, accpeted decorum, and acceptance of the results. We are losing the ability to play by the rules, to be civil, and to accept a result.[/QUOTE]

When you initially posted that comment I thought this is where you were somewhat going with it. Diversity is not bad. It adds flavor to what could be mundane. Even the "homogeneous" European countries have regional flavor (outside of the immigrant groups). Where I thought you were going is that diversity is good as long as there are accepted common cultural underpinnings that hold all of that diversity together.

In the past, what now gets labeled as "white culture" and Judeo-Christian values were the ties that bound this country together. Those have been torn down already or are currently being torn down. Without some ties that bind, diversity leads to divorce. Our culture has increasingly been pushing the gas on undermining the ties that bind as being the horrible -isms (racism, sexism, etc) without putting any thought behind what should replace them. So out with the racist Jefferson, the oppressive American Flag, the horrible Star Spangled Banner....and we replace them with? And this is where diversity goes wrong...they get replaced by a myriad of different symbols and people. And so that common American bond starts to erode to the point where all that binds us is the mostly garbage media we consume and the fact that we live next to each other.

Diversity without common bonds is Yugoslavia in the late 1980's. Without the common bonds we start to see each other's diversity as an affront. That can lead to Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia in the early 1990's where not only is your diversity an affront, it is an offense punishable by death. A mark shared by all who look like, worship like, and carry like genetic properties as you.

So yeah, "Yay diversity" as long as there is a strong trunk and roots that all those branches fall back on.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

1) being the only whites in a building of a couple hundred and 2) in a much more interactive worship than i would prefer.

Would number 2 have been a comfort zone issue if there was no number 1?

I guess the point I am making is that diversity of certain immutable characteristics doesn't affect me very much. Our closest Walmart is almost 100% staffed by minorities, and the shoppers approach 100% minority at any given time. We shop regularly there. Many of our acquaintances wouldn't set foot in the place. That might be cuz it's Walmart or it might be because of the type of people found there. I never pursued the point. My point here is that as far as I am concerned that Walmart is just a store. I am the one who usually brings diversity to the scene and I don't think anything of it.

Several years ago, that Walmart parking lot was the scene of many purse snatching and a warning was issued by our local cop shop (community policing at work). That warning altered my behavior, and I supposed challenged my comfort zone a little. I told my Stoker that if she shopped there alone, to not park in a row of cars, and look around as she comes and goes. That's it.

I've been through more than a few diversity workshops, and have been a speaker at others about various legal aspects of the federal and state civil rights laws. Diversity has turned into quite a cottage industry in the institutional and business world. Education and knowledge is always important, but by in large, I think the diversity training is worthless (except for the nuts and bolts I was involved in) cuz everybody is an individual, not a group. Those who are mostly affected by immutable characteristics simply learn how to cope, or hide, their concerns.

My Stoker was a Jr. High teacher at a school with a rather high Latino population. She was force fed materials about how to teach that kind of youngster. I think she would say that diversity training might have helped understand the group think of the kids when they were in groups, but teaching them was still individual endeavor and generalizing along racial or cultural lines was only a little bit helpful.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

[QUOTE="CO. Hoosier, post: 2314043, member: Diversity doesn't have to be this way. Chess is played with white and black pieces. But it is played with established rules, accepted decorum, and acceptance of the results. We are losing the ability to play by the rules, to be civil, and to accept a result.

When you initially posted that comment I thought this is where you were somewhat going with it. Diversity is not bad. It adds flavor to what could be mundane. Even the "homogeneous" European countries have regional flavor (outside of the immigrant groups). Where I thought you were going is that diversity is good as long as there are accepted common cultural underpinnings that hold all of that diversity together.

In the past, what now gets labeled as "white culture" and Judeo-Christian values were the ties that bound this country together. Those have been torn down already or are currently being torn down. Without some ties that bind, diversity leads to divorce. Our culture has increasingly been pushing the gas on undermining the ties that bind as being the horrible -isms (racism, sexism, etc) without putting any thought behind what should replace them. So out with the racist Jefferson, the oppressive American Flag, the horrible Star Spangled Banner....and we replace them with? And this is where diversity goes wrong...they get replaced by a myriad of different symbols and people. And so that common American bond starts to erode to the point where all that binds us is the mostly garbage media we consume and the fact that we live next to each other.

Diversity without common bonds is Yugoslavia in the late 1980's. Without the common bonds we start to see each other's diversity as an affront. That can lead to Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia in the early 1990's where not only is your diversity an affront, it is an offense punishable by death. A mark shared by all who look like, worship like, and carry like genetic properties as you.

So yeah, "Yay diversity" as long as there is a strong trunk and roots that all those branches fall back on.[/QUOTE]

Actually I was making a couple of points, neither of them very well. First of all, I don't think diversity in and of itself is the difference maker in how humans interact as many academics do. I am well aware of the line of judicial opinion that essentially holds diversity is a worthy institutional objective without considering the discrimination attached to affirmative action. I don't know about that. As I tried to explain, those who think diversity is a good thing are a fortiori engaging in the type of group think and stereotyping, of themselves and others, they are trying to avoid.

Secondly, at an individual level, if a person sees immutable characteristics of other human beings as challenging their comfort zone, that person has issues.

That said, you are kinda correct about my chess analogy. Our common bonds and common culture trumps the immutable characteristics we have. I am concerned by those who want to break the common bonds and culture for the sake of diversity. That is the wrong priority. That was't MLK's message.