The inclusion of a number of disadvantaged or otherwise excluded groups from all walks of difference is a hot button issue for us good, liberal-minded folks. It seems that the inclusion of people that are unusual within any given group because…well…why is it a good thing to associate people into the woodwork? It’s been an issue in college admissions and HR departments the world over, and lately there’s been a lot of buzz within the world of web developers (see Jason Kottke’s recent analysis of speakers at web conferences, for example).
Diversity is our latest obsession, as the liberal-minded and socially concerned. An essential part of being forward-thinking is being self-aware enough to satisfy our insatiable need to fix something in the world: correct an injustice, incorporate the Other, challenge the status quo, etc. But is this latest buzz about gender diversity (and racial, economic, and other diversity) all that it’s cracked up to be? Is it really worth our attention?
On one hand, people see equal participation within a given sphere as the indicator of a society’s well-being. And, from a historical point of view, this is true. The kicker is, the present is quite different. We’re still attributing diversity some inherent worth from our experiences of the past, which has seen a number of groups subjugated and excluded by law. Now that those laws are gone, though, we’re still some degree of exclusion or, at best, non-participation from these previously-excluded groups.
The obvious question, then, is whether or not we should be concerned at this lack of diversity now that impediments have been removed. Is this merely the social momentum at work, perpetuating itself a little bit more before it stops entirely and we see “minority” members associated into any given body? Or is it reflective of us holding steadfast to these classical traditions, even though they are no longer on the books as law? To answer these questions, I think, requires a degree of cultural insight that no one is capable of having.
Regardless of the answer, I think we need to identify the onus of what’s driving our desire for true diversity (whatever that means). On one hand, we have the drive of the liberal-minded, mentioned above. But deeper down, I think there’s a sense that the inclusion of minority groups into the whole will bring in new perspectives and views that were previously unavailable. This is what’s problematic, for me at least.
To grant some minority (or majority) an a priori different perspective based entirely upon their genetic structure (or economic status, or social history, or whatever) is to suggest that there is a fundamental difference that separates Them from Us. This space–the space of Being-as-such–implies that ideas do not stand on their own, apart from those thinking them, but rather are given some inherent value based upon who upholds and advocates them. This difference will always be present, whether or not we’re speaking at the same web conference or not.
To me, holding the perspective of a woman in high regard simply because she’s a woman isn’t bringing equality into the situation. On the contrary, it’s undermining the sense of equality that brings us together. A woman’s perspective, or an African American person’s perspective, or a gay person’s perspective might indeed be different–the lense with which they view the world is going to be altered by their experience, no doubt. However, their ability to form and expound upon ideas is no different from anyone else’s. Ideas stand apart from experiences. One’s capacity to break down, understand, assimilate, and otherwise expound upon these ideas is independent of your gender, race, sexual preference, economic status, or anything else.
And this is why diversity for diversity’s sake is a bad thing. When women are ready to break into the world of speaking at web design conferences, I’m sure that they will be welcomed with open arms, if current statements on the matter are any indicator. To uphold a viewpoint by virtue of someone’s Being-as-such instead of valuing their ideas for their own worth is truly the bane of equality, not the promoter of it.
February 26th, 2007
by bieblog
At the risk of sounding politically incorrect, I agree with much of what Jesse says. I am torn between my desire for everybody to have fair access to opportunity and my support for wholly merit-based decisions. In ideal world, we wouldn’t have to make a choice between the two. I think it is fair and reasonable for groups that have experienced discrimination due to race, identity, socioeconomic factors or some combination of the three to benefit from institutionalized equity building. However, I can’t help but think about Brazil’s recent experiences with affirmative action and this gives me pause.
For much of the 20th century, Brazil claimed to be a “racial democracy.” Compared to the history of race relations in the US, Brazil had some justification for the claim. Brazil never developed juridically enshrined forms of segregation nor did it evince a violent history of lynchings or other extreme forms of hate crimes. Socioeconomic indicators that correlated race and poverty were written off as evidence of simple class prejudice. A history of racial miscegenation, most famously celebrated by Gilberto Freyre in The Masters and the Slaves, was put forth to explain the impossibility of drawing a color line in Brazil. Even African-Americans in the US looked towards Brazil as a model of racial harmony.
However, this notion came under increased academic scrutiny in Brazil and the US alike beginning in the 1960s. Scholars reformulated their understanding of race relations, basically positing that the reason forms of discrimination BY LAW never developed in Brazil was because they were unnecessary. In short, “the black knew his place.” Socially-constituted racism was much trickier to pin down than the obvious signs of segregated water fountains and the KKK. In Brazil, social clubs and upscale restaurants and hotels would turn blacks away with plausible excuses rather than voice race-based objections. (see Carl Degler, Neither Black nor White and George Reid Andrews, Blacks and Whites in São Paulo).
Under the presidency of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, a sociologist with a Marxist scholarly bent who claimed to have one foot “in the kitchen,” that is, implied admission of partial African descent, Brazil implemented some limited affirmative action, particularly with respect to university admissions. Brazil’s federal universities are the best in the nation and they also offer free tuition but to get in you have to take a rigorous entrance exam. Obviously, those that can afford private schooling have an advantage. Additionally, high school graduates that can afford to do so take year long preparatory courses at private academies to give them an edge. So these coveted spots are awarded primarily to the upper middle class and above, who, not uncoincidentally, are white or nearly so.
Not surprisingly, as these policies were implemented, elite aspirants suddenly began to claim that they were not white on their applications, hoping to secure one of the spots reserved for Afro-descendant or indigenous students. As racial categories are somewhat malleable (in a crudely reductionist sense, “money whitens”), one could get away with this, presuming that some other census data were not available that previously classified the applicant as white. So despite good intentions to address socially constructed racism with institutionalize remedies, the relatively privileged could still work the system to their advantage.
The above diatribe, however, deals primarily with politics and not your remarks about valuing diversity for its own sake. On the second point, from my perspective, there are so many ways to define diversity that the obvious gender, racial, and identity-based categories are grossly insufficient. I am reminded of a recent conversation with one of the applicants for the position of A&S dean at my university, a history department chair from South Carolina. He spoke of how he had increased the diversity of his department during his tenure, achieving gender equity and hiring three African American faculty. To which a colleague quipped, “and how many Northerners have you recruited?” He didn’t have a ready answer but it begs the question, how is diversity to be measured? Class? Where you were born and raised? Your religion or lack thereof? Birth order? Whether or not you were beaten as a child? Your body weight? The list could go on and on, but to assume, for example, that an upper middle class Hispanic male is somehow uniquely qualitatively different or “other” than an upper middle class white male is essentialist to the point of possibly being insulting. The same could be said of men and women of otherwise similar class or racial backgrounds. I could go on but it would belabor the obvious. Ultimately, our identities and intellects are constituted from so many different influences that we are all diverse. Singling out specific gender or racial categories for favored status in specific contexts may address past injustices that deserve redress. I don’t have a problem with that politically, and on balance, I support it. However, on intellectual grounds, it’s essentialist and reductionist to a fault.
March 2nd, 2007
by Christopher
You have excellent points, but can this be changed?
A new wave of pissed off minorities are being taught that AA is the way to get ahead, when, in reality, it is a blanket form of reverse discrimination.
Some may take the view, “I’ll take what I can get,” but others may cringe from having to mark their ethnicity on any application.