Thoughts on Diversity (Part 2)
Here’s the other half of my meandering thoughts about diversity. Might be a bit heavy for some, so again – if you’re bored, skip this one. I’m going to attempt to limit my ramblings to a quick discussion of planned diversity in institutions of higher learning, glocalism / globalization, multiculturalism, and token diversity. 
Right, so the first thing I should tell you is that I harbor no animosity toward the groups and organizations I’ll talk about here. Ok? I first want to talk about diversity in the university setting. I went to Furman University in my home state of South Carolina. It’s a private school, so my points aren’t as urgent as they’d be if it were a public university. I chose to put my money into that school, and as a result, supported – for better or worse, purposefully or inadvertently – all of the things that the school supports. We often joke that our money goes more to gardening and construction than anything else, but it certainly does go to a lot of other stuff that I never have a final say in. It is also intensely focused on diversifying the student body. That’s where I’d like to start.
Diversification in the states on an ideological level means bringing in people from other nations, with differing backgrounds and perspectives, to provide greater cross pollination in a cultural sense. Unfortunately, in the real world it works out differently. Diversification has become simply the liberal application of sloppy political correctness. The focus in too many cases seems to be the attempt to “fix” the perceived problem of a white or male majority. (If you know of a case where a prominent all girls school or all black school has sought diversification, please refer me to the case.) In short, it’s about framing a perfect “rainbow” picture. The circle of hands that range in melanin content. You know what I’m referring to. I once won a T-Shirt contest for the Isle of Palms Bridge Run (which I never received prize money from…they still owe me $250). I won easily because I pandered to the idea of a rainbow shot – I drew a design that included equal gender representation, a white person, a black person, a brown person, and a handicapped person. It was cheesy to say the least, but it won with ease. I’m kind of ashamed of that now. At the time, I thought I was doing a noble thing, but now I really do recognize it for what it is – hyper political-correctness. The world has become far too sensitive.
Furman has taken the concept so far that they actually have a Diversity Plan, which is found under the Multicultural Affairs section of the public website. This seems odd to me. Not that we seek to bring bright young minds into our school from all over the place, but that we seek them more than other indigenous bright young minds. In a very extreme interpretation, this kind of diversification is racist. Obviously, I freely admit to having enjoyed this on the receiving end of the benefits when I attended school in Tokyo. Because I was an exchange student, the standards for me were remarkably low compared to the domestic standards. Why? The emphasis on diversity brought about a frenzied campaign to “import” it. It’s not just America. Anyway, I feel that it is completely counterintuitive to change entry requirements for people in non-meritocratic ways. If there are extra needs, then by all means fill them somehow, but keep the standards the same. To do anything less is to insinuate that these diversifying students are not capable of the same standards – and that is messed up.
The Furman University International Students Association is also interesting to me. Let me say that my senior year at Furman was spent mostly with FUISA kids. We became great friends. Check my Facebook if you require proof. Ha ha. However, I made my share of friction with some of them by voicing my opinion on the nature of the club. Here’s the official line, according to the University.
FUISA works to orient international students to college life in the United States by providing a network and an opportunity for students of different nationalities to meet and exchange ideas.
- Student Organizations
At my very first meeting with FUISA, I stepped over the line. There was a debate going on about whether or not to change the name to “FUISA & Friends” or something similar. This was interesting to me – because, like most institutionalized diversity, it drew some hard lines in the sand. It became immediately obvious that some people thought of FUISA as a support group for foreign students. I’ve no problems with that – I was a foreign exchange student, too. I get that being outside of your cultural framework can be a jarring experience, and its nice to have an insulated group where you can feel at ease or whatnot. However, having said that, I felt that it was impossible for the club to serve its other stated (more official) purpose. That is, to diversify and internationalize campus.
I didn’t join the club until my senior year because I was under the impression that it was exclusively for foreign students. I was wrong, and I wish I’d known because I’d have joined during my freshman year. I missed out on loads of friendships, and cool learning experiences. I regret that. You know? But it does say something about the image that the club put off. FUISA’s presence on campus consisted mostly of club meetings and annual events. The events included dance shows, fashion shows, poetry nights, food samplings, etc. The problem that I saw was that the interaction was anything but. It was action in one direction. We were putting on shows, showing off how interesting and exotic we were, but with very little interest about impacting foreign students. Yes, of course they were quite knowledgeable about life in America, because they lived there. Still, the diversity caused the inclusive or exclusive nature of the club to be called into question. You see, if the club was to be called FUISA, then it was inclusive – open to any student body. If it was called FUISA & Friends, then it became apparent to native students that they would never belong to the international group – that they would be relegated to the ranks of friends. Nobody wants to be a groupie for club you can’t join. It’s elitist and hypocritical, however, to claim that diversity happens simply by being somewhere and being different from what’s considered normal. Most of my friends in FUISA did their internationalizing outside of the club at the end of the day – through friendships and relationships and living their individual lives. I guess it serves as an interesting case in point for my thoughts on the extreme focus on diversity. Diversity happens naturally, and does not need to be sponsored or fostered to the extent that we’ve tried to induce it.
Diversity includes everyone. Institutionalized diversity is constantly worried about differences, and so common ground is never found. Common ground does not support special interest groups, maintain the status quo for victims of ostracism, or bring money to the masses of downtrodden minorities. The object of the game is different at diversified institutions. Or perhaps I should say the preoccupation is different. We must keep cliques in order, separate people by phenotype and genotype, gender and preference, ideology and philosophy. When we’re all sectionalized properly, we’ll achieve the rainbow picture – the perfectly portioned diversity that institutions of higher learning seem to seek. I take issue with that. It’s wrong and it shouldn’t be that way. America is a wonderful, ragged, layered, imperfect, nuanced melting pot with chunks – and I wouldn’t have it any other way. Ideally, I want the “It’s a Small World” ride to stay in the theme park where it belongs, and I want people to just live as folk in the real world.
Multiculturalism is the same sort of overdriven political correctness. It’s taken root in Europe to a great degree and made quite a mess of things. It’s currently working itself into America and Scandinavia, too. The idea of assimilation has become taboo – expressly verboten, and even “anti-patriotic,” which really boggles my mind. I would never deign to enter Japan and continue to live as though I was in America. I’m shocked that people want to do so in my country. Don’t get me wrong, I love Chinatowns, J and K-towns, Little Italys and French Quarters – but the separatism that is fostered by enforcing boundaries and stressing differences inside our society leave it fragmented. Is that what we strive for? Is that where we’re headed? I sure hope not.
The folks who champion concepts like Glocalisation and Globalization would argue that nation-states are on their way out – of recognized import, not existence. They say we should think globally and act locally. That’s all well and good for many a thing – environmentalism, economics, and do-goodery. But diversity is a strange thing to approach. We act like every group of people should have a special say in their host country’s state of affairs. Embassies are no longer enough. Everyone must be an embassy – constantly radiating the shining enlightenment of difference. I call that problematic. It demeans diversity by making it into something lesser.
I currently hold a job where it is my job to be foreign. I walk into classrooms and act as the cultural informant. It is also my job to act completely clueless about the country in which I live, so that I might be educated repeatedly. The teacher-student role dynamic of my job is simultaneously frustrating and invigorating. I’m a paid for bit of token diversity in my official capacity – but I am legitimate diversity on my own time. I don’t for one second believe that walking into a room and teaching about how in America we don’t drink milkshakes for breakfast and then learning (again) how to properly hold chopsticks is a culturally gratifying or beneficial experience. I do, however, think that my interactions with my landlord, the guy at the supermarket, the public transportation people and other citizens of this country as a legal alien resident make a difference. They learn all kinds of boring and interesting things. And I learn far more about Japan outside of my classes. That’s just common sense. Token diversity is exactly that – token.
To close, I’d like to pull back and once again state that I am all for diversity – of the natural kind. Alton Brown opens his new show about road food (Feasting on Asphalt) talking about the pavement being what “stitches this crazy quilt of a nation together.” I like to think that there’s a shared connectedness and commonality under the surface of it all. The pavement paths stretching between our diversified selves is the shared goal of becoming a community. In America, I hope that means becoming a great America. When the most important things in our lives is how differentiated we are, I just don’t see this happening. Diversity should be a byproduct and benefit of living in increasingly international times – it should not be a requirement or quota. In short, stop and ask what is diversity and what is discrimination – because we clearly confuse the two on a frequent basis.
I’m done. Allow me to hop off the soapbox and get back to my normal junk. Hope you have a pleasant day, out there. 
