What does Diversity mean? I'm not asking to be facetious, I genuinely don't know what it means in this context. The elementary, middle and high schools I attended were not only white-majority, but practically white-exclusive. When I graduated, my class had 0 black kids, and 4-5 mixed race latino/a kids, who all did their best to blend in with us whiteys. The environment was not racially diverse, but kids made a point to acknowledge, highlight and value their different ethnic backgrounds. In my mind that's one kind of diversity. How the cultural practices of immigrants eventually changes and morphs as the immigrant family/population adapts to its host country. In college I was immediately dumped into a melting pot of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Yemeni, Jordanian, South Korean and Chinese international students. This group displayed a diversity of ethnicity and there was a certain homogeneity in the opinions this group held. Without exception, every single one of these kids came from wealth. The amount of casual racism and classicism displayed by this group was actually rather shocking. There was a definite lack of diversity in the opinions of that group, but if you looked at them in a picture, or read about their personal histories, you would say it's a very diverse group. That's another kind of diversity. So when we talk about the value of a 'diverse' workplace, are we judging solely based on melanin content and facial features? Or is diversity of opinion something that is also valuable? How about diversity of background? I would argue that a rich white kid has more in common with a rich black kid than with a poor white kid. Call Damore a Nazi if it makes you feel good. I think that there is a reasonable discussion to be had about what we mean when we say 'diversity' in the context of hiring decisions, and I believe that discussion is professional-field specific at the very least, and is possibly more granular than that, down to each and every specific job.
Before we begin, elaborate on the dichotomy between these two statements: 1) The elementary, middle and high schools I attended were not only white-majority, but practically white-exclusive. 2) The environment was not racially diverse, but kids made a point to acknowledge, highlight and value their different ethnic backgrounds.
Over simplification inbound. Race is not the same thing as ethnicity. In the context of my middle American high school, we were all racially 'white.' There was ethnic variation between my classmates. I have an ethnic background based in the culture of a group of Finlanders who came to the US at the turn of the 20th century. A friend of mine is the first born son of a Ukrainian immigrant who came over here when things started getting squirrely after the fall of the Soviet Union. If there was a picture of the two of us, it would hardly be labeled 'Diverse' and our upbringings and culture were vastly different. In this case, 'white' is the national census sub-group we both fall under. We are racially similar, almost identical. My friend has been working hard at getting rid of his accent because it was giving him difficulties in college and more when he was looking for work. Racially similar, ethnically different. That of course is limited to this example, and other definitions of both 'race' and 'ethnicity' exist. In the 'ethnicity' field here at the hospital, you can check hispanic/latino, non-hispanic/non-latino, or other. That is different from the 'race' field, which has all the census favorites in it.
- Nobody in the United States is oppressing Laplanders. - Nobody in the United States is oppressing Ukrainians. - Nobody in the United States is oppressing Russians. I legit grew up a white minority in an environment where the Chicanos were the dominant ethnicity and had been for 400 years. The principle beef was between the Chicanos and the Native Americans, who together accounted for more than 65% of the population. Restaurants I couldn't eat at because I was white. Stores I couldn't shop at because I was white. You're sitting there with your entire family for 45 minutes and nobody brings you a menu... because you're white. And that was useful to experience. It was novel. And I thought I understood the impacts of racism until I moved in next to a charming black gentleman with a Ph. D from USC who taught at Cal Arts who had to sell his Ferrari because he got sick of getting pulled over every day. I thought I understood the impacts of racism until I had not one but two LAPD cops apologize for pulling me over because "they didn't realize I was white." As a white dude, I can look at you, white dude, and not only give no fucks about whether or not you're Ukrainian. I can look at you, white dude, and know your experience. More than that, you can know mine: yeah, I can throw out a couple anecdotes about the junkyard that said "we don't serve your kind and never will" but they're anomalies, not the dominant narrative. - Women will always be women. - Blacks will always be blacks. - Armenians will always be Armenians. - Hispanics will always be Hispanics. and you can't synthesize diversity out of a bunch of white backgrounds because they seriously don't fucking matter compared to the experience of minorities. I want you to imagine 8bit, sitting there all half-Arab half-African, in the middle of white-as-fuck UC Boulder, reading this: That's because you're willfully naive and ignorant on the subject. Wealth changes. Opinion changes. Race does not. "Diversity of background?" You gonna call the Amish a diversity hire? I'm not going to call Damore a nazi. But I'm also not going to crawl so far up my own ass that people who think black people suck should count as "diverse" because somehow opinion should count as much as fuckin' race.So when we talk about the value of a 'diverse' workplace, are we judging solely based on melanin content and facial features? Or is diversity of opinion something that is also valuable? How about diversity of background? I would argue that a rich white kid has more in common with a rich black kid than with a poor white kid.
Opinion should count more than race. Diversity serves purpose, and opinion-based-diversity will get a lot more done than race-based diversity.
My two cents: I think what everyone's looking for with diversity is the diversity in opinions, in walks of life. There are many ways to consider that kind of diversity, from education and income to culture and age. At the same time, the various systemic problems that arise with homogeneity and discrimination are difficult to address without resorting to abstract categories (like race, gender, etc.). Like you say, the judgement of diversity is over measurable things like melatonin because it's quite difficult to assess "nonstandard backgrounds" otherwise. As an example, I had a first company-wide meeting yesterday at my new job. I was happy to see quite some diversity in age, gender, race and political affiliation - my previous gig in the same line of work was like 80% white dudes. However, nearly everyone has a college degree, so it's not very diverse in that regard. However however, that is to be expected with this kind of work, so it's probably not such a problem. I dunno. Diversity is important and should be pursued, but there are limits to what you can achieve in certain fields and that needs to be taken into account. But those limits also shouldn't be used to hide ideas of superiority.
Nail on the head. I think about this a lot with churches. My wife has been looking for a church that's more diverse. She found one that had a lot of racial diversity, but most of the members were in the local divinity program and she just didn't click with any of them. Now we're at this farm where everyone has similar ideas on the value of food, but there are widely different backgrounds and beliefs (though most of us are white.) She likes this group more, but feels guilty because in her eyes it's less diverse. In the latter location, we're exposed to a broader range of opinions and experiences, but they feel less diverse (to her) because they're all processed through a similar lens. I'm not saying one's right - but I do believe a community requires some degree of homogeneity to at least start to mix together.
In order to experience an ethnically-diverse group as more homogenous than an experientially-diverse group, one must interact with them on a dismissively superficial level. That would be the lens of "making nice with white people." Great thing about white people? They don't have to make nice with each other! That means they never have to navigate around all the racial bullshit that has become a dull hum in the background of their lives. It's almost like when you're hanging out with a bunch of white people you don't have to worry about someone taking jokes the wrong way so you can just let your white flag fly!In the latter location, we're exposed to a broader range of opinions and experiences, but they feel less diverse (to her) because they're all processed through a similar lens.
I agree, but what kind of homogeneity? Linguistic diversity is a good thing, but if a group is too linguistically diverse they are quite literally incapable of communication (Barring the super good translation software that is becoming available en-masse). To steal yet another line from Heinlein, I don't enjoy snake dances, I despise crowds, and I do not let slobs tell me where to go on Sundays. I do believe a community requires some degree of homogeneity to at least start to mix together.
To me, it's some homogeneity of belief. I like the farm because it acts as a social safety net - if conversation gets difficult or awkward, you can retreat to what you know is a shared belief by everyone who's there. It keeps the connections from drying up completely. I'm not sure I get the context of the Heinlein quote though.