Thoughts on Diversity (Part 1)
Diversity. Love it, loathe it, or laud it, but acknowledge that it is one of the biggest buzz words in hyper-politically correct America today. This piece will serve as both a deliberation and a diatribe against the concept and its purpose in mainstream, liberalized, internationalized society today. Please keep in mind that I wrote this piece while in Japan working as a living agent of diversity. Read on for my ruminations on illegal immigration in the US, the emphasis on diversity in institutions of higher education, confusion about racism / nationalism / domestic character, trendy terms like glocalisation / globalization / multiculturalism, and lastly token diversity. I’ve split these topics into two posts, so that neither is novel-sized. If you’re bored already, just skip this entry. If you’re like me, though, and like to kick around big thoughts and chew on them once in a while, please read on.
Mr. Robert Putnam of Harvard has been in the news twice now by my count. The first time he came up was in October of 2006, when Financial Times writer John Lloyd wrote about the results of some of his research into diversity. Apparently, the professor took issue with the characterization his research received, and his rebuttal was quickly published in the Harvard Crimson. Well, he’s back in the news this month (June 2007) for diversity all over again. A press release was issued from Harvard and publications (like the City Journal) have been picking it up since then.
“Becoming comfortable with diversity is not easy or quick, but it will be speeded by our collective efforts and in the end well worth the effort. One great achievement of human civilization is our ability to redraw more inclusive lines of social identity. Our national motto – e pluribus unum – reflects precisely that objective – namely to create union out of diversity. Our current immigration debate needs to focus more on that task.”
- Professor Robert Putnam
My personal experience and philosophical leanings certainly agree with this quote. While I’m firmly convinced that he’s back in the news due to the United States Senate’s recent failure to achieve cloture on S.1639 this week. (Thank goodness, in my opinion.) Illegal immigration is a hot topic either way. Putnam’s research shows that socialization in highly diverse circumstances changes dramatically in an unbecoming way for the short term. In other words, that people in highly diverse populations tend to place less trust in anyone during the adjustment, relative to people in less diverse populations. Needless to say, that will be batted around by proponents and opponents of the bill. Something that I think should be pointed out about the immigration argument is that people who are for enforcing the borders and current immigration legislation are branded as nationalists, or racists, and other distasteful things.
That’s a problem. Immigration is not about racism. Immigration is about legality, national sovereignty, international respect, and the affluence-born victimhood so rampant in wealthy industrialized nations. I don’t understand why US citizens feel bad about the plight of the illegal immigrants – as though we have done them wrong somehow. I want immigrants to come to the United States – I just want them to be legal. That’s better for us and better for them in the long run. And due having friends who waited years to become legal and gain citizenship, as well as currently living as a legal alien in Japan at present, I have the utmost respect for those who go about doing things above-board, intending to integrate, succeed, and officially participate in society.
It seems to me that the attempt to characterize people, like me, who want to slam down hard on those who break the law, is a weak way to win. Calling people like me racists or nationalists is absurd. (Here’s where self-defense sounds sad, because I feel the urge to suddenly offer up my non-white friends in some pathetic way as a kind of proof. Sigh.) I’m from Charleston, South Carolina – a place that still carries the “racist” reputation for most people I meet in the outside world. I’m used to being asked if I hate black people. That’s sad, isn’t it? Truth be told, though, Charleston is more integrated, stable, and comfortable in its cosmopolitanism than comparable US cities in a way that only a post-slavery port city can be. Skin color and ethnicity are simply part of a person’s identity, not the sum total of it, and the few groups who still brandish racist rhetoric are easily called out for what they are. But not many people play the race card on an every day basis – it seems that my hometown is moving on and the world prefers to remember our shameful past instead of our promising present and future.
Diversity is not the opposite of racism. Legally speaking, diversity is a quota, and racism is the crime of not properly filling that quota. In reality, racism is judging / treating / thinking of a person for better or worse based solely on their race. In my opinion, legislation cannot defeat real racism. Ever. Period. And, somewhat ironically, the very laws put on the books to stem the flow of problems that spring forth from a “racist” society are themselves…racist. Seriously. Think about it. I like laws that say you cannot refuse to hire someone based on race. I like laws that say that you cannot refuse to let someone become a tenant or land-owner based on race. Why? They’re about pulling walls down and creating an inclusive legal framework that protects people as our cultures catch up with our noble ideals. I could not be more opposed to saying that you must hire person A over person B based on the color of their skin, or their religion, or their chosen gender identity. That is not inclusive. That is exclusive. That is problematic. In seeking to solve social issues, legislators have institutionalized them. This is a disservice to all people. It both demonizes the majority and patronizes and insults the minorities. In my opinion, it is absolutely unacceptable.
I agree wholeheartedly with Chief Justice John Roberts who, in the recent kerfuffle over racial assignment in the public school system, said in an admittedly sound-byte ready quote that, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” What a truism. I wish people would get that. Forced diversity is not a fix for social ills – it is merely an exercise in sophistry. Real equality includes everyone, and unless society itself perfectly conforms to racial quotas, the only way things will improve is as things change on a cultural level. Case in point – Charleston, SC. Not perfect, but far better than it was.
I opine that the majority-minority problem will continue to rear its ugly head for a long time to come. I also imagine that more damage will be done to American society as we rally about how awful we are. It seems that diversity, in its modern form, carries an inherent insinuation that the dominant culture is flawed or in need of some correction. I find that insulting in two ways. First, I don’t feel that mainstream America is evil or warped in the way that many people apparently do. Second, I don’t like to think of America in terms of identity politics, where the minority groups are opposed to or clash with the majority groups. In fact, using an extreme interpretation, the very act of separating people out into majority and minority groups is setting up a self-perpetuating discriminatory system. I like to think of everyone as American. Unfortunately, it is increasingly common to see hyphenated forms of ethnic-nationality tossed about. People are never American anymore. They are Hispanic-American, Asian-American, African-American, Cuban-American, Japanese-American, Nepalese-American, etc. (They even become as vague as “Asian Pacific American“, if you remember.) I recall someone rhetorically pondering whether they identified themselves more as the first part or last part of their hyphenated identity groups. I suppose as a white guy, being unable to claim any interesting, culturally diverse moniker, I am left simply being an American, all the way around. It’s weird that I suspect I’ll soon become a minority in this thinking, though. American diversity used to be a source of cohesion, but lately it is becoming a source of division. I hope people get hip to the fact soon. I like it better when we’re all in it together.
Ha ha – yeah, and that was only part 1. Sorry. 
