Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have always wondered about the benefits of diversity in schools. Many school rankings weight diversity very highly. However in practical application, I have not seen a benefit. The "diverse" schools I have been involved with are very segregated. White students take these classes, hang out in this area and avoid the Hispanic students who take those classes and hang out in a different area while the black student congregate in yet another area and take a separate group of classes. Students of other races who cross into the wrong area or classes are subject to bullying or even violence. Students from these schools are more prejudiced than students from homogonous schools for whom people of another race/culture are something of a mystery. They are better equipt to maturely address and accept race and culture differences when they get to college. When classes are mixed, I have not ever seen some great new wave of thought developing form diversity of culture or ideas. And talking with some teachers, college professors and college students, while they will always say diversity = good when you ask them for concrete examples demonstrating the benefits, they have nothing.
While I would agree it may be a good value in and of itself, I am not sure the whole "diversity of ideas" thing really mounts to a hill of beans, especially in the K-12 schools. I am certainly not sold ont he idea that kids who attend diverse schools are better educated or better equipped for dealing with adult life. In fact, my experience is the opposite.
I went to a school that didn't have any interracial tension, but played out exactly like this (it was 50% white, 30% black and the remaining 20% was split almost evenly between Latino and Asian).
Blacks hung out with mostly blacks. Latinos kept to themselves while Asians hung out with those they had the most in common with based on extracurricular activities like sports, band, orchestra, mock trial etc. Whites split up based on class. Those that lived closest to the school in nice houses with hot-shot dads and stay-at-home moms all brought their lunches to school and congregated in one cafeteria. Those that came from single-parent homes or lived in apartments were more inclined to hang out in the hot-lunch cafeteria with the people of color.
True diversity doesn't happen by just mixing kids together. What I've found is that the neighborhoods make more of a difference. If all races of kids live in the same apartment complex or housing subdivision, race is less of a divider and the kids split off based on interests and other commonalities. Mixed high schools often have whites that live in one area and kids of color that live in a different area but with each group zoned to the same school. The white kids see all their classmates on the same block, so they become close outside of school hours just living next door. The black kids end up doing the same thing. Residential segregation matters more than we all realize, though I'm not sure there's much that can be done to change it.
Another one of the best comments here.
In the end, people hang out with people who look like themselves.
Replying to OP, I believe people say diversity is good BECAUSE they know it causes a lot of problems. If something is inherently already good or works well, there's no need to say it outloud and to shove it into our brains.
An example of this: I read celeb news and it's similar to how heavy women promote body acceptance and they shout all the time about being happy with their large shape. It's BECAUSE they know their shape isn't attractive and they KNOW they're not accepted in celeb world.
Another example: feminism. Women shout feminism and strength because everyone knows men rule the world. You don't see men shouting for strength and dominance because they already ARE.
In other words, people advocate for something because they know there's something wrong with their position, so people advocate that diversity is good because they know it's bad. Shouting something outloud is an attempt to fix the problem.
In the end, people hang out with people who look like themselves..
"Look like" is too shallow.
These days, I see teen (that is, Post-Millennial) white boys with pictures of both white celebrities and black celebrities in their lockers and on their walls, and the boys see both types of women as equally "hot" even though they look different.
I see Millennials hanging with people who act like themselves and think like themselves as much or more than with people who incidentally look like them. Race is merely incidental to how a person thinks and acts for these young people. For that matter "looks like" seems to most Millennials as encompassing much more than skin color.
In the end, people hang out with people who look like themselves.
Replying to OP, I believe people say diversity is good BECAUSE they know it causes a lot of problems. If something is inherently already good or works well, there's no need to say it outloud and to shove it into our brains.
An example of this: I read celeb news and it's similar to how heavy women promote body acceptance and they shout all the time about being happy with their large shape. It's BECAUSE they know their shape isn't attractive and they KNOW they're not accepted in celeb world.
Another example: feminism. Women shout feminism and strength because everyone knows men rule the world. You don't see men shouting for strength and dominance because they already ARE.
In other words, people advocate for something because they know there's something wrong with their position, so people advocate that diversity is good because they know it's bad. Shouting something outloud is an attempt to fix the problem.
Actually this post is bereft of any logic. People speak out on things because they believe something is wrong and seek to bring change. By your logic, Jim Crow laws were a good thing, as was denying women the right to vote and opportunity to work high powered careers all because people spoke against the status quo.
The planet has plenty of diversity on its own. I'm not sure why every region, with a heavy emphasis on regions with a western culture, must be diverse as well. Often diversity is just a code word for the displacement of western cultural influence, anyway.
In many countries it is always said that diversity is great and that it only strengthens them. But is it really? It seems like countries that have a lot of diversity, especially speaking of racial and religious diversity have some of the biggest issues; war, poverty, divide, conflict etc. Yet look at say, Japan, for the good part when it comes to race, religion, etc it is doing very well.
Yet look at countries both past and present that were diverse and it ultimately always seems to ultimately end in ruin. The Roman Empire became diverse; destroyed from within. Austrio-Hungray was diverse; pretty much sucked at everything they did in WWI and had all kinds of issues leading to its dissolution. Then look at today where countries in the West are primarily accepting refugees and others with belief like, values, ideas etc that are far different than what the host nations are used to leading to lots of crime, and discord.
So honestly, when it comes to things such as peace, prosperity, a general sense of unity would it not ultimately be best if every country, like Japan had one race, one language, one religion, one general outlook regarding things etc etc etc?
Homogeneous nations seem to do better than those that aren't.
Two factors may work in such situation. Homogenous society may also loose something from the world, on the other side, diversified society may come into some complexity. In the diversified society, people of different nations plead for their respective views, and culture. But the real native people will lose their own culture. Foreign culture will assault to demolish the native culture. This is the main controversy.
But undoubtedly, diversified society get some extra benefit for social development. Superstition and some narrow native culture may be demolished.
There are way more white people waxing eloquently about the benefits of diversity than there are people of color arguing about the benefits of diversity. People of color want fairness and equality. Period. They don't really care how that is accomplished. If diversity does it. Fine. If not, fine. But something should accomplish the objective of equal access by people of color to employment, housing and quality of life comparable to the dominant white majority.
As I understand it, 95% of white people do not have a black friend, and 75% of white people do not know a single black person at all. Not even casually. The 800lb. gorilla of diversity is that diversity is the inclusion of people of color into the wider society. No, it is actually the inclusion of black people into the wider society.
Societies are healthiest when they are cohesive. The homogeneous societies are enviable because they are cohesive. The supposition is that they are cohesive because they are homogeneous. What if that is incorrect? What if they are cohesive just because. What if cohesiveness can be achieved regardless of the socio-ethnic makeup of the population so long as everyone respects one another as human beings? I know that this is possible because America has integrated just about every other ethnicity of people, except black ones. It is pure politics that stalls the breakdown of that last wall of apartheid. It is imiggration politics that has touched off the present difficulties that Central Americans are having with the White House. As people, the immigrants are not perceived as dangerous, or lazy, or people to be feared. Latin people are not much more likely than white people to be shot on sight by agents of law enforcement.
I think that as long as people share the same the same basic attitudes toward work, family, education, morality, and personal responsibility -- and as long as keep their religion to themselves (unless the community is religious in nature, such as the early Puritan settlements in Massachusetts) -- diversity is fine, although I personally prefer to be around people like myself -- considerate, polite and honest middle-class moderates with a strong work ethic. (I don't care about any other characteristics -- or at least I can't think of any other right now.)
The conflict comes when two basically incompatible groups of people try to share space, and this is particularly a problem when newcomers try to force their culture on the natives (or even get rid of the natives). The problem is a lack of respect for people different from oneself, and this has been a problem for centuries.
P.S. I also think that a common language is important as communication is key to fostering good relations between people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
