It’s time to hear from our enemies on what they say maximal diversity is. The official definition, straight from the source, Berkeley University:
Diversity refers to human qualities that are different from our own and those of groups to which we belong; but that are manifested in other individuals and groups. Dimensions of diversity include but are not limited to: age, ethnicity, gender, physical abilities/qualities, race, sexual orientation, educational background, geographic location, income, marital status, military experience, parental status, religious beliefs, work experience, and job classification.
The point here is to not to criticize Berkeley individually, for this definition, or something very like it, appears at universities throughout the land and is reproduced in corporate human resource handbooks everywhere. If you feel that I have mischaracterized what is meant by “diversity”, now is your chance to point to this definition and say, “See here, Briggs. This clause clearly shows you to be wrong.” Once you go through this exercise, you will find that not only have I been right in all, but that my attempts at definitions have been more rigorous and clear than my opponents’.
Note very carefully that I am not speaking of what might or might not happen to be written into any “affirmative action” or “equal opportunity” laws. We are not discussing law, and any such comments are irrelevant.
Take any characteristic in Berkeley’s list and ask, what could they possibly mean? For instance, “age” as a “dimension of diversity.” Presumably—as I have presumed—this means diversifying a scope (Berkeley’s student body, say) with respect to age. Let infants matriculate, should we? If you say, “No! Don’t be absurd” it is you who are disagreeing with the written policy of diversity. You are overlaying an arbitrary rule that says those of a certain age shall not form part of the diversity calculus. It may happen that I agree with your ad hoc rule. But will everybody? And it means that “diversity with respect to age” does not mean “diversity with respect to age” but something else.
How about “sexual orientation”? Should our list of diverse behaviors include necrophiliacs and pedophiles? Say no and once more you invoke arbitrary rules. Say no and you admit that diversity is not desirable. Say no and you deny that “human qualities that are different from our own and those of groups to which we belong” should sometimes be shunned. If you say no, you admit of moral absolutes. And that, my dear reader, is dangerous (slippery slopped?) ground.
Care to take a stab at “physical abilities/qualities”? Part of this aspect surely includes (in our scope) students unable to learn. Grades are really unfair anyway, aren’t they? Should we include those unable to master their studies? Say no and you admit restrictions and limits of diversity. Say no and…well, I hope by now that you get the idea. And we haven’t even gotten started! What about “work experience” (genocidal maniac?), “religious belief” (human sacrifice?), language, and on and on? Oh my, we shall never be diverse!
The whole point of this laborious, pedantic essay up to this point has been to prove to you what you might not have heretofore granted. That “diversity” as it is used by its proponents retains no shade of meaning with its plain English sense. It instead is a code word; a way to hide political motives, perhaps even motives not fully understood by the word’s users; a phrase having a purely technical definition which runs something like this:
Within in a scope diversity is the state of (maximal or proportional, whichever is more convenient to my politics) difference in behavior and characteristic, both of which are chosen from a narrow range most conducive to my personal likes and political goals. Diversity is not diversity—a state of difference; dissimilitude; unlikeness.—but unity with my desires.
Since politics are ever shifting, so does “diversity.” You must understand that some of these politics may be right and proper, considered with respect to other criteria beside “diversity.” For example, I think it is a fine idea to proscribe human sacrifice, given my belief in the sanctity of human life. And what about the poor soul who was improperly denied what was rightfully his simply because of his skin color? He should have recourse through the law to be given his due. Then again, much of the politics behind “diversity” will also be wrong and improper, considered with respect to, say, the existence of moral absolutes.
We need retain scope in our definition, because diversity over the entire Earth is something like a maximum. (Finally, we reach the “something like.”) Obviously, diversity is not maximal (it cannot be proportional, that concept now being impossible to define uniquely for the entire population), because there are many characteristics and behaviors that do not find representation among the extant population but that are physically or biologically possible. Should we encourage “experiments in living” so that these unrepresented states obtain? To ask the question is to answer it. Diversity really is the dumbest idea ever.
I have reached the end, at least of your patience. There is much more than can be said, but it will have to wait for another time or place.