Diversity Shmiversity: Should we really care about diversity in our pursuit of Homeland Security?

You’ve done it. I know you have. I saw you roll your eyes when that last round of d**ersity training was announced. Funny how you suddenly had a doctor’s appointment during the mandatory staff meeting featuring a d**ersity subject matter expert.*

I get it.

The d-word for some is just meaningless jargon, a dirty word even. It’s partly a marketing issue. Sometimes diversity training is only deployed to mitigate the damage of poor management and/or communication skills. Some folks only hear and think about diversity at work in the context of an equal employment opportunity complaint or lawsuit. For others, diversity means affirmative action, and nothing more. To be clear on this last point, affirmative action is a worthy effort in and of itself, and will remain so until the evergreen devastation of past and/or present discrimination against underrepresented groups, namely people of color and women, is no more.

Diversity principles, though, are more broad and more nuanced than we tend to think. Yes, we are talking about ensuring people of varying races, genders, gender identities, sexual orientations, ages, and physical abilities have a voice, and influence on how the government is run. But, and this is important, we are also talking about ensuring that there is room for diversity of experience –personal and professional-, thought, ideas, and talent. Diversity is central to the success of all modes of business, but particularly in the homeland security enterprise. Just consider it. The threats we face are metastasizing at an alarming rate, and our responses to them must be nimble, textured, and layered. And that doesn’t happen on its own. It happens as the result of the concerted effort of public servants not afraid to challenge the orthodox, as well as leaders not afraid to have their conventional methods questioned. Homogenous assemblages of the same kind of people, with the same kind of experiences, and the same kind of thinking don’t leave room for that kind of dynamic.

Take, for example, the potential difference in responses from a TSA officer encountering an ostomy bag for the first time versus the response of one who has herself worn one. Standard operating procedures would be followed in either case, but the familiarity alone promotes efficiencies and reduces security vulnerabilities by keeping people moving. How about the security gains of an architect turned infrastructure vulnerability specialist? Or the value of recruiting police officers from the communities they will be working?

So, yes, diversity has a branding problem, and perhaps diversity fatigue is real. But don’t let that be an excuse to not take seriously your employer’s diversity initiatives, no matter their form or function. To ignore the value of the pursuit of diversity precepts in the homeland security space is a security vulnerability, and one we don’t have to accept.

*I am, of course, not referring to you, dear reader. I’m talking about that other guy.

Care to push back? Go for it! Let’s have at it in the comments below!