As we’re celebrating Martin Luther King’s accomplishments in breaking down the barriers of race in America, the conversations today have turned to examine the state of race and class in America. As one might expect, the word “diversity” plays a key role in many of these conversations.
Embracing diversity is of late oft touted as the path to peace, harmony, and wisdom. Diversity is enforced in schools. Diversity is desired in the work force. Diversity is looked for in the church. Woe be to anyone who would dare to ask questions such as “What is diversity? Why is it good? What have we gained from it? Who’s agenda does it serve? Is it authentic?” So inevitably, I shall now rush in and endeavor to address some of these questions at my own peril.
If Diversity is the savior of mankind, we must first ask what it is. In reality the word “diversity” is often simply code for “including people of a different skin color.” Of course, the breaking down of racial barriers is good and proper. As Americans we believe that all men are created equal and all have something to contribute regardless of their skin color or ethnicity. But is race the only real test of diversity? If one is truly to be diverse then can we say that having a class with three African-American children from the same town and income level as their white counterparts provides more diversity than say three other white children from a different country? Is it more diverse to have an Asian child who was adopted by white parents and raised in middle class America than it is to have a White child who was adopted by Asian parents and raised overseas? It would seem that diversity is a bit more tricky than it appears on the surface. There is a word for the assumption that all white people no matter what their background will behave and think in exactly the same way. The word is “racism.”
But let us imagine for the sake of argument that we have achieved an authentic diversity. We have a class or a workplace that represents a diverse spectrum of humanity. Now what? Do math problems suddenly take on a new and fuller meaning? Do the facts of history change depending on the audience who is studying it? Are the spreadsheets and assembly lines of business now imbued with some mysterious genius fire because the people who control them grew up in different cultures? At last check a hammer or a protractor doesn’t care where its masters grew up.
This is not to say that studying different cultures is not without merit. We all share a common humanity and differing circumstances do tend to breed a more or less perspicacious perspective on some particular particle of life. But the concept that upbringing brings a unique perspective is equally true whether the person has grown up in Jakarta or Jersey. The root assumption that merely because something has been believed and taught by the Chinese or the Mexicans or some remote aboriginal tribe that it is inherently better than what a person believes in Boise is simply rubbish.
In a practical sense, we do not call upon the wisdom of a people who’s society lives by subsistence agriculture to bear us witness of how we should live in an industrial society. Nor would we expect in the child of the inner city to be given any heed when he presumes to instruct farming communities on their lifestyle. A person’s cultural wisdom is specific to his people’s space and time and is not guaranteed to translate well to a different place and populace.
But to continue the discussion, let us set aside that problem as well and pretend that we now may have a perfectly diverse group and people who can speak with great wisdom to circumstances that they have not themselves lived in and inform others from the natural stores of wisdom held by their culture. According to the modern rules of diversity only very specific groups have the right to exercise this power to say “my people have wisdom which other peoples do not.”
A claim of cultural superiority would no doubt be vilified if it came from a white person who was speaking to an ethnic diverse crowd. Yet, if a minority member claims such status for their own people it is embraced as “diversity.” Who made the minorities so very wise? And if they are so wise why do they continue to be in the position of needing the helping hand of the promotion of diversity? If, to quote our newest Supreme Court Justice, a “wise Latina” makes inherently better decisions than a White man, why do not Wise Latinas run the country instead of White men? It’s a difficult nut to crack to be sure.
The great ill of the those who are ethnocentric is to think that ways different from mine are worse than mine. It is matched in equal force by the ill of those for whom “diversity” is a cult and think that what is different from mine is better than mine. In reality it can be either or neither. What is different is merely different and has no special power, relevance, beauty, or wisdom inherent in it. Let each thing be judged on the merits of itself.