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.
“Can you cite one speck of hard evidence of the benefits of "diversity" that we have heard gushed about for years?"
I will offer some examples of evidence and links to sources for various kinds of evidence below, but first...
Quote:
"Evidence of its harm can be seen — written in blood — from Iraq to India, from Serbia to Sudan, from Fiji to the Philippines."
I have argued in numerous posts throughout this thread that instances of violence are NOT evidence for harm cause by diversity, as such. I'd like to use an example that might make sense to a lot of conservatives: When someone is killed by a gun, is this evidence that guns are bad and should be banned? Gun owners tend to say no. They'll point out that it is not guns, as such, but the misuse of guns that is the problem. Whenever something has the power to be used for good, it also has the power to be used for evil. Generally speaking, strength implies risk, and the greater the strength, the greater the risks. If diversity is, indeed, a form of strength, then it should come as no surprise that the misuse or misunderstanding of diversity comes with some risks. The incidents "written in blood" are not evidence that diversity is bad - these incidents are evidence that we need to find better ways to deal with diversity. I've already addressed this in previous posts in this thread:
Page 6, #55: Cultural diversity, as such, is not the cause of bloodshed. Intolerance of diversity causes bloodshed. Bigotry, cultural insensitivity, the desire to grab land, conquer and rule - all of these lead to bloodshed. A respect for diversity is about the only thing that can counteract the types of violence you are referring to.
Page 7, #62: In reality, it is not diversity, as such, that creates the hatred and battle lines. It is ignorance and "groupthink" that picks harmless differences and turns them into excuses for aggression.
Page 18, #172: I would point to mundane everyday life for most Americans. Imagine, for a moment, that every positive interaction between people of different cultures, religions, etc., were printed as news in your local newspaper. I suspect you'd need a whole truck just to bring you your single copy of the today's news. [...] I think this counts as proof that diversity, per se, is not the cause of violence, and it is proof that human beings do not inevitably have to respond to diversity with hatred and aggression.
Now, as for the evidence that diversity is strength, I've already posted some comments about this, but they are buried in the thread, so I'll paste a few of them below. But before we can talk about evidence for the strength of diversity, we need to understand what diversity is, and what it is not:
Diversity is not about forcing people who hate each other to live in close proximity, or work together. If this is what you think "diversity" is, and if this is what you are opposed to, then I certainly won't be able to offer any evidence that "diversity" is strength. Forcing hostile people to live or work in a confined area is simply not what "diversity" means in the context of the phrase "strength in diversity." In general, when the word 'diversity' is used by people who support diversity, the focus is on equity and inclusion.
Diversity is just the reality of modern life, the strength in diversity comes from allowing diverse people to positively contribute to society by encouraging equity and inclusion. I've already tried to explain this here:
Page 28, #274: The phrase "strength in diversity" is best understood as a reaction to a default "xenophobic" type of mindset. In general, I think that a lot of people respond to diversity out of fear and/or ignorance and thus fail to recognize that sometimes - maybe even a majority of times - the diversity that they want to avoid can actually be a strength in the long run. It's not about slamming people together without regard for potential problems; it's about developing an organizational mindset that reduces the ignorance/fear components so that diversity can exist without dangerous turmoil. This is the spirit and strategy behind the "strength in diversity" adage. [...]
What is being promoted by the phrase "strength in diversity" is simply the recognition that differences can, in fact, be valuable. An organization that recognizes this potential value, and works to address the kinds of fear and ignorance that prevent productive cooperation in a context of diversity, will almost certainly be far stronger, in the long run, than it would otherwise be.
In light of this understanding of diversity, we can talk about evidence for the idea that diversity is strength. For example: Whenever we find a person who is successful, who would probably not be so successful in an environment that was opposed to diversity, we have evidence for the strength of diversity.
General principle: When you allow people to exercise their talents, the community in which they exercise these talents tends to benefit.
Example: ‘I am who I am,’ she professes. ‘I happen to be a woman. I happen to be over 40. I happen to be gay.’ She also happens to be a managing director and head of global sector research at UBS, in charge of around three dozen of the investment bank’s most senior analysts and the firm’s global investment review committee. ( IR Magazine | Strength in diversity )
And here are a few lines of evidence I offered earlier in this thread:
Page 3, #24: It seems to me that America provides fairly good evidence for the idea that diversity, in many ways, is a strength. Most of the US political is grounded on a belief that diversity is good. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly...even the very concept of democracy itself...all essentially serve to protect and nurture a diversity of ideas and lifestyles. I don't think diversity is tearing the country apart; I think it at the heart of what makes a great nation.
Page 114, #12: Malcolm Forbes, the deceased chairman and editor-in-chief of the magazine that bears his name once said diversity is the art of thinking independently together. Strength in Diversity | Article | The United States Army [...] In 1999 the Gallup organization conducted a massive in-depth study of 80,000 great managers.* [...] The research found that identifying and utilizing employee strengths was more important than pay, benefits, perks or even a charismatic corporate leader. It enabled the building of a stronger, more effective workplace. The Strength of Strengths - Diversity Journal
Page 14, #140: I'd like to suggest that beneath all of the specific examples that one could give from human history, there are well-documented scientific theories and mathematical models explaining the underlying mechanisms. [...]The diversity-stability debate : Article : Nature
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 03-05-2015 at 10:53 AM..
"Diversity" is nothing more than code for...well, we know what it's code for. A group with a darker complexion, or other-than-hetero sexual preference, should not be automatically deemed "diverse". Especially when they all possess the same philosophy and mind-set. The "diversity" crowd is easily offended by criticism, and intolerant of contrarian ideas & opinions. "Diversity's" true meaning is "Agenda".
Yes, diversity is just a code for anything other than straight White, Christian male. That is plainly obvious, so I'm not sure why anyone would try to deny it. If you had an international school full of White students from every country in Europe, it's unlikely that anyone would say that it was diverse. It's more likely that some would try to shame the school for not being diverse, despite the fact that the school was actually multi-cultural.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,174,514 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supachai
Yes, diversity is just a code for anything other than straight White, Christian male. That is plainly obvious, so I'm not sure why anyone would try to deny it. If you had an international school full of White students from every country in Europe, it's unlikely that anyone would say that it was diverse. It's more likely that some would try to shame the school for not being diverse, despite the fact that the school was actually multi-cultural.
Not true at all. This is a fallacious line of reasoning, born out of a reactionary sentiment, possibly rooted in the fear of loss. Why conservatives (and others) continue to feel under assault is astounding. Diversity isn't just about diversity in race, though that's certainly a part of it.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,174,514 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
I will offer some examples of evidence and links to sources for various kinds of evidence below, but first...
I have argued in numerous posts throughout this thread that instances of violence are NOT evidence for harm cause by diversity, as such. I'd like to use an example that might make sense to a lot of conservatives: When someone is killed by a gun, is this evidence that guns are bad and should be banned? Gun owners tend to say no. They'll point out that it is not guns, as such, but the misuse of guns that is the problem. Whenever something has the power to be used for good, it also has the power to be used for evil. Generally speaking, strength implies risk, and the greater the strength, the greater the risks. If diversity is, indeed, a form of strength, then it should come as no surprise that the misuse or misunderstanding of diversity comes with some risks. The incidents "written in blood" are not evidence that diversity is bad - these incidents are evidence that we need to find better ways to deal with diversity. I've already addressed this in previous posts in this thread:
Page 6, #55: Cultural diversity, as such, is not the cause of bloodshed. Intolerance of diversity causes bloodshed. Bigotry, cultural insensitivity, the desire to grab land, conquer and rule - all of these lead to bloodshed. A respect for diversity is about the only thing that can counteract the types of violence you are referring to.
Page 7, #62: In reality, it is not diversity, as such, that creates the hatred and battle lines. It is ignorance and "groupthink" that picks harmless differences and turns them into excuses for aggression.
Page 18, #172: I would point to mundane everyday life for most Americans. Imagine, for a moment, that every positive interaction between people of different cultures, religions, etc., were printed as news in your local newspaper. I suspect you'd need a whole truck just to bring you your single copy of the today's news. [...] I think this counts as proof that diversity, per se, is not the cause of violence, and it is proof that human beings do not inevitably have to respond to diversity with hatred and aggression.
Now, as for the evidence that diversity is strength, I've already posted some comments about this, but they are buried in the thread, so I'll paste a few of them below. But before we can talk about evidence for the strength of diversity, we need to understand what diversity is, and what it is not:
Diversity is not about forcing people who hate each other to live in close proximity, or work together. If this is what you think "diversity" is, and if this is what you are opposed to, then I certainly won't be able to offer any evidence that "diversity" is strength. Forcing hostile people to live or work in a confined area is simply not what "diversity" means in the context of the phrase "strength in diversity." In general, when the word 'diversity' is used by people who support diversity, the focus is on equity and inclusion.
Diversity is just the reality of modern life, the strength in diversity comes from allowing diverse people to positively contribute to society by encouraging equity and inclusion. I've already tried to explain this here:
Page 28, #274: The phrase "strength in diversity" is best understood as a reaction to a default "xenophobic" type of mindset. In general, I think that a lot of people respond to diversity out of fear and/or ignorance and thus fail to recognize that sometimes - maybe even a majority of times - the diversity that they want to avoid can actually be a strength in the long run. It's not about slamming people together without regard for potential problems; it's about developing an organizational mindset that reduces the ignorance/fear components so that diversity can exist without dangerous turmoil. This is the spirit and strategy behind the "strength in diversity" adage. [...]
What is being promoted by the phrase "strength in diversity" is simply the recognition that differences can, in fact, be valuable. An organization that recognizes this potential value, and works to address the kinds of fear and ignorance that prevent productive cooperation in a context of diversity, will almost certainly be far stronger, in the long run, than it would otherwise be.
In light of this understanding of diversity, we can talk about evidence for the idea that diversity is strength. For example: Whenever we find a person who is successful, who would probably not be so successful in an environment that was opposed to diversity, we have evidence for the strength of diversity.
General principle: When you allow people to exercise their talents, the community in which they exercise these talents tends to benefit.
Example: ‘I am who I am,’ she professes. ‘I happen to be a woman. I happen to be over 40. I happen to be gay.’ She also happens to be a managing director and head of global sector research at UBS, in charge of around three dozen of the investment bank’s most senior analysts and the firm’s global investment review committee. ( IR Magazine | Strength in diversity )
And here are a few lines of evidence I offered earlier in this thread:
Page 3, #24: It seems to me that America provides fairly good evidence for the idea that diversity, in many ways, is a strength. Most of the US political is grounded on a belief that diversity is good. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly...even the very concept of democracy itself...all essentially serve to protect and nurture a diversity of ideas and lifestyles. I don't think diversity is tearing the country apart; I think it at the heart of what makes a great nation.
Page 114, #12: Malcolm Forbes, the deceased chairman and editor-in-chief of the magazine that bears his name once said diversity is the art of thinking independently together. Strength in Diversity | Article | The United States Army [...] In 1999 the Gallup organization conducted a massive in-depth study of 80,000 great managers.* [...] The research found that identifying and utilizing employee strengths was more important than pay, benefits, perks or even a charismatic corporate leader. It enabled the building of a stronger, more effective workplace. The Strength of Strengths - Diversity Journal
Page 14, #140: I'd like to suggest that beneath all of the specific examples that one could give from human history, there are well-documented scientific theories and mathematical models explaining the underlying mechanisms. [...]The diversity-stability debate : Article : Nature
I will offer some examples of evidence and links to sources for various kinds of evidence below, but first...
Anecdotal evidence of particular successful individuals who happened to not be a straight White male does demonstrate that diversity is a strength.
Actual proof of diversity being a strength would involve looking at a non-diverse community and measuring specific things associated with quality of life and seeing that they improved once the are became more diverse. And this would have to be not just in a few cases, but the majority of the time. Then it would be a factual statement to say that "diversity is strength." As it stands, the phrase only serves as propaganda.
"Diversity" is nothing more than code for...well, we know what it's code for. A group with a darker complexion, or other-than-hetero sexual preference, should not be automatically deemed "diverse". Especially when they all possess the same philosophy and mind-set. The "diversity" crowd is easily offended by criticism, and intolerant of contrarian ideas & opinions. "Diversity's" true meaning is "Agenda".
Quote:
Originally Posted by empireghost
Uh-huh. That's what you took from my post? Why not just say the word, and prove my point?
Your post made no sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supachai
Yes, diversity is just a code for anything other than straight White, Christian male. That is plainly obvious, so I'm not sure why anyone would try to deny it. If you had an international school full of White students from every country in Europe, it's unlikely that anyone would say that it was diverse. It's more likely that some would try to shame the school for not being diverse, despite the fact that the school was actually multi-cultural.
This doesn't make sense either.
Diversity is not a 'code word.' There are many schools both here in US & elsewhere who have students from many different Countries - they are diverse.
Not true at all. This is a fallacious line of reasoning, born out of a reactionary sentiment, possibly rooted in the fear of loss. Why conservatives (and others) continue to feel under assault is astounding. Diversity isn't just about diversity in race, though that's certainly a part of it.
Of course it's true. Your opinion runs contrary to reality.
When are all White areas, schools, or organizations lauded for their diversity? Sometimes you might see an example given where a non-straight White person is highlighted as an example of diversity, but this only applies to individuals. If you had a part of town that was 40 percent gay, you aren't going to hear people claim that part of town is diverse if it's still an all White area.
Yes I saw that in my career all too often. Female engineer here and I was almost the "victim" of forced diversity but held my ground. I certainly didn't want to be seen as having played "the girl card" to work my way up the career ladder. But yeah..white males have it extremely hard in today's corporate world at the low rungs of the ladder regardless of their skill level.
And Corporate America remedies this by quickly promoting white males above the low rungs of the ladder.
And Corporate America remedies this by quickly promoting white males above the low rungs of the ladder.
Are white males promoted or are individuals promoted?
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.
