You can’t spend much time at the U without hearing about diversity. It’s a buzzword that is thrown in here and there-and just about anywhere. Believing it is important often signals you’re a caring and open-minded person. But what exactly is diversity?
Some students speak about it so passionately you would think it’s the equivalent of God. Others view it as the worst thing to happen to “normal” Americans since the Great Depression.
What do people really mean when they use this word? Are they talking about equality between races, genders, religions or sexual orientations? Maybe they’re not talking about equality per se, but equal representation. Or are they just suggesting a “noticeable heterogeneity” as a dictionary definition would suggest?
Diversity, it seems, has the possibility of being interpreted in limitless ways. It could even mean focusing on having a student body with a variety of heights and making sure that a special effort is made to recruit giants and little people. Or it could simply refer to having students in a diverse breadth of academic majors.
Through my time at the U, I’ve gathered that diversity generally refers first to race and then to gender, sexual orientation and religion. It is a word used to describe the importance of variety and equal standing within each of these categories. It may also be used in the context of arguing that a particular group needs more representation or that others should be more tolerant of it.
I agree with these usages of the word. However, I also believe the definition is unclear and the goal of diversity is equally vague. Ask five different people the purpose of diversity and you’ll hear five different responses. You might even be treated like it’s a question you shouldn’t ask-as if the answer is obvious and asking about it is heretical.
I’ve heard a lot about diversity at the U, and most of the time it seems to be focused on factors that lie outside an individual’s control-such as race. This form of diversity promotion is certainly important for equality and tolerance in specific aspects of human identity, but it shouldn’t be considered a panacea for societal ills.
Just take a look at President Bush’s cabinet, which has been called one of the most diverse in U.S. history. From Condoleeza Rice to Carlos Gutierrez to Elaine Chao, you’ll find a group rich in racial diversity. Yet although they may look different, they all belong to the same ideological camp.
With most of the attention focused on physical or birth-related forms of diversity, there seems to be less given to that which originally made a liberal education unique: diversity of opinion and heated debate. This has always struck me as odd.
Although other forms of diversity are important, I believe diversity of opinion is the most critical for progress. The type of diversity that current rhetoric focuses on should serve as the foundation for deeper forms of diversity that value contrasting views and opinions-even those with which we may disagree. The problem is that the current diversity message is incredibly vague and often seems to limit what an individual may or may not think. This approach may serve to advance particular causes, but it also stifles others.
Matt Homer