Diversity and Respect
I was reading a document on the accreditation process for colleges and universities. It was rather critical of the fact that accrediting agencies include diversity as one of the criteria they consider in accreditation. I got me thinking about a few issues around diversity that I thought I would share.
I think one of the serious errors that is made on all sides of the debate is that we don’t distinguish between diversity and respect for diversity. Often, the word diversity is used to mean either or both. This seems to lead to some confusing by people on both sides of the aisle.
Those on the left say they want to encourage diversity, while those on the right say that diversity creates division. Both have good points, but I think we need to be more careful in our terminology.
For instance, I think liberals miss the mark when they say that we should encourage diversity. Why we should encourage diversity is unclear, unless it is simply the American knee-jerk reaction in favor of hyper-individualism. Why should I try to be different from everyone else? Being the same as someone else does not diminish my individuality in any way. True individuality does not come from wearing unique clothing, driving a car no one else has, or any of the other outward things that people often use as a substitute for individuality.
But while I am not in favor of encouraging diversity for diversity’s sake, I am very much in favor of encouraging respect for diverse people and cultures. This is not the same as encouraging diversity. It merely means that when I find diversity, I acknowledge it and don’t try to change it to fit into a preconceived mold. Encouraging diversity means forcing myself or someone else to be different; respect for diversity means allowing someone else to be different.
Where I think conservatives have it wrong is in the opposition to diversity. While they are correct to oppose the idea that we should not make people be different, they are wrong when they say that diversity itself is wrong. Diversity itself is neither right nor wrong. It is simply a fact of existence. The question is how we respond to diversity.
Diversity is always going to be present in any society, even in the supposed melting pot of America. Their is danger in the pendulum swinging both way. Having a lot of diversity brings about a very dynamic society, but that creative energy often comes at the price of lessened stability. Societies with lower diversity are more stable, but risk stagnation.
Conservatives want to encourage the continuation of the melting pot ideal, while liberals want us to become multicultural. Neither is the correct approach. Although we talk about the melting pot of America in the 18th century, the animosity between Irish, Italian, Chinese, and others, especially in large cities like Boston and New York, shows that we never achieved that ideal. On the other hand, the United States will never be fully multicultural. Once people move to an area outside of their own culture, they begin to change. Even when they preserve elements of their culture, those elements become adapted to the new society. Successive generations find it harder and harder to connect to a culture they never experienced first hand, and end up adopting something of the majority culture.
In other words, there will be diversity no matter what we do, and we must learn to respect that diversity. At the same time, the diversity of new elements will wane over time as they become acclimated to the culture of the majority, although the culture of the majority will be modified somewhat by the process.
All of these processes are sociological in nature. It is a shame that people are distorting them for political ends.