Public education advocate Sabrina Stevens infiltrates a meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council and hears Indiana State Representative Cindy Noe urge ALEC to tackle the content we teach. "If we're not careful," says Rep. Noe, "we will end up with a full generation of secular humanists, of multiculturalists—with kids who don't know real American values."
Blake Page makes a high-profile exit from West Point, claiming that the majority conservative, Christian culture at the academy marginalizes cadets of other faiths and philosophies. P&R suggests Page is just being obnoxious.
Meanwhile, the CIA posts the following ad on the Rapid City Journal's webpage. (I find the fuller version in the Sept/Oct 2012 OutServe.)
Diversity. The perfect hedge against groupthink.
Hiring people with different backgrounds, experiences and beliefs helps keep the nation safe. Your unique views and your chosen field of endeavor are needed at the CIA. [Central Intelligence Agency, advertisement, fall 2012]
I've often contended that diversity is not a value in and of itself. The CIA's recruiting slogan challenges that position.
If diversity refers to diversity of opinion, thought, perspective, then yes - diversity has merit of itself, although there are limits even here. I'm not sure the perspective of the Aryan nation contributes much to the discussion that's worth having.
If diversity refers merely to racial, gender quotas, then not. If they're all different races, genders, etc., but they all share the same opinions it isn't diversity. It's just groupthink in technicolor.
It is also, I think, racist to assume that just because someone has a particular skin color he (or she) must think a certain way and therefore mere racial diversity constitutes this counter to groupthink.
Along with a severe lack of diversity, there also seems to be a lot of groupthink in the Republican Party these days. The GOP's pledge of allegiance to Grover Norquist is a prime example.
PNR, (er. your last sentence) That's not (necessarily) racist, more like stereotyping. "Racist" implies that persons of one skin color are somehow superior to those of other skin colors. To me, the latter (racist) is far more reprehensible and egregious than the former (stereotyping).
PNR, your point about Aryan Nation dudes is exactly why I bucked my multiculturalism training back in the SDSU ed program in 1991. We can't value diversity to the point of moral relativism. A viewpoint is not good just because it exists. Some viewpoints are wrong.
I would even agree that, in the abstract, picking teams based purely on a racial quota may be a bad idea. But in our practical world, where race is often a reasonable proxy for different upbringings and experiences, might there be a place in public policymaking for making an extra effort to seek input and participation from beyond our own racial category?
While race might be a valid proxy for different upbringings and experiences, so are many things - religion, level of education, relative wealth, geography, military experience (or lack). Why just race? It also begs the question as to whether different upbringings and experiences are as important as the different conclusions. Would you say race, the experiences that go with it, are the primary factor in either Barack Obama's or Clarence Thomas' conclusions and present thinking? I wouldn't.
If using race as a "reasonable proxy" ends up in arguments as to whether or not Elizabeth Warren really is or isn't Cherokee, or whether Barack Obama is "down for the struggle" or "Black enough" to speak for African Americans, or suggestions that Clarence Thomas is really just an Oreo because he does not think the way the stereotype says he should, then is it reasonable?
In other words, it seems when we use this reasonable proxy we end up with the opposite of what we're aiming for.
Or red enough: one in three American Indian women are raped. Go back into your hole, 'pastor.'
How I am to respond to such brilliant intellectual repartee, Mr. Kurtz, is beyond me I'm afraid.
And thank you for the Google juice.
How do you expect to be taken seriously when of course President Obama and Justice Thomas make decisions based on their experiences as non-whites? CIA and the other employers want people without the sense of entitlement that comes with being white in amerika.
I don't think I said "just" race. I'm defending the idea that race is one reasonable criterion for useful diversity. It is not the only criterion. From what little I know of Elizabeth Warren's background, I'm willing to agree that the small Cherokee branch of her family tree does not significantly enhance the diversity she would bring to a discussion of economics or public policy. At the same time, I would argue that Barack Obama's experience as the child of a black Kenyan man and a white American woman, as well as living in significantly diverse communities, enhances discussions of economics and public policy in ways that including child of white privilege Mitt Romney would not.
Mr. Kurtz, I said "primary factor" - and I stand by that, particularly given the vast gulf between the policy, religious, and legal views of Justice Thomas and President Obama. And if we're talking a sense of entitlement, I rather doubt one can limit that to White Americans. Nor is the CIA looking for diversity merely to avoid that sense of entitlement. Diversity of perspective is a vital tool in the intelligence business, particularly when it comes to analyzing and interpreting the data. When it comes to intel, groupthink can be deadly.
Cory: point taken re: "just race". My concern is that race has become a substitute for actual diversity. A cabinet that "looks like" America (Clinton's stated objective, for instance) is not diverse because they look different. Indeed, in terms of policy conclusions, it was remarkably uniform. I'd say the same thing about Obama's cabinet.
But more than this, I don't think the Democrat Party as a whole is really all that committed to racial diversity anyway. If the goal was to have Hispanics on the Supreme Court, why did Democrats so strenuously oppose Bush's Hispanic nominees (and NOT his White nominees)? If the goal was to have a Black person on the Supreme Court, why the vehemence in response to the nomination of Thomas to replace Marshall - a vehemence that was, again, not extended to Bush I's White nominees? By way of proof, I point to the fact that all of their Hispanic nominees were defeated, and the only White nominees who were defeated were defeated because of opposition from the conservative wing of the GOP (Ms. Myer, in particular).
So we have, on the one hand, a nation that is willing to argue about how much blood from a particular source is sufficient to make one "Cherokee", primarily for the purpose of benefiting from using race as a proxy for diversity and, on the other hand, a strenuous objection (and frequently appallingly racist - some of the things said in major papers about Condoleeza Rice, Justice Thomas, Miguel Estrada, and even President Obama by those to the left of these individuals were shocking) to actual diversity even when it obviously falls into those racially diverse categories.
Given this history, it seems to me that the use of race as a proxy for diversity is counterproductive in attaining actual diversity and further encourages an unhealthy fixation on race rather than character, pushing back the day when Dr. King's dream becomes a reality.
In your opinion.
That Ambassador Rice became the focus of negotiations on the fiscal pothole completely refutes your premise.
Dreaming about living in a post-racial society hardly makes it so especially in light of Cory's post on South Dakota's dependence on federal aid.
The Native twitterverse is aflame with revolution: embrace it or die.
Zero Native federal judges.
PNR, any chance I could read your critique of Dems' opposition to certain black and Hispanic judges as proof that the Dems are farther along than you give them credit on seeing beyond skin color as the basis for their hiring decisions?
I don't think so, Cory. Not unless you grant that the same willingness to critique Black and Hispanic candidates (for any office) on the part of conservatives and Republicans is likewise proof that skin color is not a basis for their hiring decisions.
And if you grant that, then the need for race as a proxy for diversity evaporates entirely.
I will agree that economic class may well be more important in establishing diversity in public policymaking than race. However, race and ethnicity are still significant components of diversity within our culture and cannot "evaporate entirely" as long as racism and prejudice manifest themselves in our culture.
Racism and prejudice will exist as long as human beings are finite and prone to sin.
The question is whether or not using race as a basis in making judgments on fitness for office - including the need for diversity of opinion, thought, perspective, et al. in both formulating and implementing policy - effectively attains the ends in view, chiefly, that same diversity.
I don't think it does. You and I may both be White, even derived from a common Germanic heritage, but our common race is not much use in predicting how we think or view the world. Similarly Maxine Waters and Alan West, though both Black, do not see the world the same way at all. We do a disservice to those of any race when we assume that the color of one's skin is a reasonable predictor of the content of their minds, hearts, or character.
But even if it were, we must also ask whether the cost in continuing to use race as such a predictor is worth the benefit gained. A reasonable case could be made that it did in 1964. By 2004, I think that cost-benefit had shifted and using race as such a predictor actually contributes to prolonging racism while being of almost no use in attaining that diversity of perspective sought.
And if this is so - that race is not an effective predictor of diversity of mind or character and that using it prolongs an evil (racism) - then the need for using race as a "reasonable proxy" for that diversity has indeed entirely evaporated. Note - I do not and did not say that race or ethnicity are insignificant. I say the need to use race as a proxy for diversity has evaporated.
You can pretend race should not be a proxy if others get to pretend that evil truly exists.
Heritage is the touchstone of humanity: maybe you should visit a restaurant where the servers flit effortlessly through a dining room where English, Spanish, and Dine' are exchanged among the patrons and staff.
Get over yourself, pastor.
I wonder: can we take Waters and West as representative of diversity within one color line? Or are they extreme outliers brought to the fore by political polarization?
The word "evaporate" still seems a bit strong. Growing up black or Indian in America is still fundamentally different from growing up white, isn't it?
The thing is to remember that the objective is diversity of perspective and thought. In some individuals, race will be a factor in that diversity. The utility of race as a proxy in both discerning and attaining that diversity is approaching nil.
I have two brothers, one White (as I am), the other Black (adopted when he was just shy of 2 yrs old). The latter has indeed been on the receiving end of racist attacks, slights, and slurs (many of them from "upstanding" members of the denomination I serve). His conclusions on economics, politics, and race tend to closely resemble mine. The former takes the more traditional view of race as a proxy for this diversity that you've been defending. His wife, a Korean immigrant, was more ambivalent on the question. Neither race nor upbringing provides a reliable proxy for predicting diversity of opinion, thought, experience, and perspective - and that's just one family.
Is the diversity we seek all about position on the political spectrum? Or is there a diversity of experience that stems from race that still provides better perspective, even if everyone in the room is registered Republican?