Diversity is Good, but Maybe That’s Not the Point
Are we striving for something that ought to be a given?
The U.S. is a nation of immigrants. Our demographics are always changing. The way our population is changing now indicates that our current white-people majority will become a plurality by 2045. As a result, some people (looking at you, Tucker Carlson) question the value of social diversity, and it’s important to address. Especially now as white Christian nationalism is growing as a threat.
Is diversity good? Ask the internet and get a thousand answers, but the ones I’m looking for involve scientific research. This article from the Greater Good Science Center does a great job reviewing existing diversity research. The author finds that while social diversity may not be easy, the effect it has is quite beneficial, and for business, maybe even necessary:
“Research has shown that social diversity in a group can cause discomfort, rougher interactions, a lack of trust, greater perceived interpersonal conflict, lower communication, less cohesion, more concern about disrespect, and other problems. So, what is the upside?
The fact is that if you want to build teams or organizations capable of innovating, you need diversity. Diversity enhances creativity. It encourages the search for novel information and perspectives, leading to better decision making and problem solving. Diversity can improve the bottom line of companies and lead to unfettered discoveries and breakthrough innovations. Even simply being exposed to diversity can change the way you think.
This is not just wishful thinking: It is the conclusion I draw from decades of research from organizational scientists, psychologists, sociologists, economists, and demographers.”
(The emphasis above is mine.)
Great! Diversity might be difficult at times, but it’s ultimately good, problem solved.
Except. Something is still stuck in my craw.
I wonder, is the “goodness” of social diversity beside the point?
Fact: the U.S. is a diverse country. Fact: the U.S. is a representative democracy, a republic. Shouldn’t we be examining representation at different levels within our republic for adequate diversity, diversity that matches the population?
The diversity within institutions should match the diversity within the populations affected by those institutions. If it doesn’t, we ought to question why. Do the demographics of our governing bodies match those of the districts they serve? What about law enforcement? Is student diversity mirrored in that of their teachers?
Maybe the “goodness” of social diversity isn’t what’s important when we live in a representative democracy. Maybe diversity is what we should expect to see because that’s what a representative democracy promises us. Everyone should be adequately represented at every level within the public/government sphere.
(And, since the science says diversity is good for business, business owners and others within the private sphere should want the same thing.)
It seems intuitive to me that social diversity is a good thing, even if it’s also difficult at times. But asking the question “is diversity good?” implies that diversity is something so superficial, we can opt in or out of it. When we look at social diversity in the context of who we are as a nation, we can see it is ingrained in us. We can see it affects all of us, not just some of us.
We should question ourselves when we think social diversity doesn’t apply to us or it’s not important. If our citizens are not adequately represented in our republic, then we don’t have a republic. Do we really want the kind of government that values certain groups of people more than others? Because when the tables inevitably turn, we may want the safety and security of knowing that we are all truly equals.
