Published September 14, 1999
I have noticed that there is a word that causes people to lend their support to nearly any idea, and which is somehow supposed to turn our society into a modern utopia. That word is �diversity,� and it is the latest cause that all good people are supposed to support without question.
In the past, I have tried to be a supporter of diversity whenever possible. I have met privately with both student leaders and administrators in order to discuss the implementation of diversity programs, I have applied for positions that would have entailed the promotion of diversity at Indiana University, and I have even sponsored student legislation in order to increase diversity awareness. I did this because I thought that when other people said �diversity� they meant the same thing by it that I meant, and that we had similar goals with regard to its promotion.
I have previously considered diversity to be a method by which a person could participate in a helpful exchange of ideas. There have been many occasions in my life where listening to an opinion I had never heard before deepened my understanding of an issue, and where presenting my own views allowed others insight that they had not previously had.
The benefits this attitude brings with it are remarkable. It can create greater understanding between peoples who believe they have nothing in common and bridge gaps that would otherwise remain closed by fear of the unknown. Diversity as I have understood it is a remarkable tool for increasing personal understanding of the world and for exploring similarities between groups that do not realize that they have anything in common.
Unfortunately, I am becoming more and more certain that what is commonly called diversity does not live up to my standard for the word. Too often, I have seen the label of diversity used to present one idea while excluding other possibilities and considerations. I have observed advocates of diversity speak out against groups with whom they should be trying to open a dialogue. I have watched diversity become an end in itself rather than a means for greater understanding.
Diversity is a very useful tool for learning about other ideologies, but it is not supposed to be an ideology. Once diversity crosses the line from an attitude to a philosophy, it has descended from a position where it can facilitate dialogue between factions to one where it is itself a faction. Once diversity becomes a belief system, it necessarily comes into conflict with other belief systems, and then it can no longer be a tool with which to understand ideological differences.
Not surprisingly, the belief systems with which diversity is most often in conflict are those which are commonly considered �intolerant.� Diversity becomes the opponent of intolerance rather than the means by which to explain opposing ideologies to each other. This change makes diversity a political statement; an issue that everyone must support wholeheartedly or be labeled intolerant. It takes it away from its true purpose, making it a vehicle by which to promote political agendas rather than cultural understanding.
I believe that diversity is only worthy of the name if it maintains that intolerant ideas have as much right to be heard and discussed as tolerant ones. It must accept them all and provide a forum where they can be discussed apart from personal belief.
If ideas are allowed to be looked at for their own merits, without the idea that the intolerant ones are automatically bad and the tolerant ones obviously preferable, I believe that diversity can serve a good purpose. If you allow all points of view to be presented fairly, new lines of communication will open between beliefs that were considered irreconcilable. This sort of diversity will not destroy intolerance by being intolerant; it will instead be tolerant and, by example, change the world.
The Value of Human Life
Faith in Organized Religion
When Diversity Becomes Intolerant
Updated Tuesday, 14-Sep-1999 01:02:45 EST
OTHER COLUMNS:
Original Letter to the Editor