Diversity Is Not Always Desirable Parts I, II, III, IV
Suppose we are not interested in “the best” or the “is qualified” premises and merely seek to stock our organization such that diversity of physical characteristic is maximized. That is, we forgo requiring ability or even minimal competence. Is diversity then possible?
First let’s ask what is on the list of measurable human characteristics. Chiefly sex and race–which some of those who seek diversity are at pains to say does not exist, yet it is the trait they most assiduously track (even “gender” is said to be fluid). Secondary measures are birthtime, birthplace, location, height, weight, age. Tertiary objects: hair quantity and color, blood type, fingernail length, wart quantity, freckles, exact genetic structure, and on and on. The number of measurable characteristics is thus very large; not infinite, but it may as well be.
Within a limited scope—the professoriate within Behemoth University, say—to maximize diversity of characteristic is thus impossible since you can only hire a finite number of people, yet we must track a (practically) infinite number of diversifiable characteristics. So no matter how the professoriate is stocked, some traits will not be represented. This horrible injustice will give cause for complaint to those possessing the excluded characteristics—if the hiring process is announced and known to be based on maximizing diversity.
Other traits will exist in multiple copies: for example, those with a complete set of limbs. Should these fully formed folks be balanced with those who are forced to make the sound of one hand clapping in the exact proportion in which they are found in the population? The whole population as it exists now? Or the past, too? In just a limited geographic area? Or the Earth as a whole? How shall we count? But suppose we sort all that out. We then face the problem that once we balance the limbed with the not-so-limbed, we have to turn to the other repeated characteristics (hairy versus bald, those over 5′ 10″ versus those not, etc., etc.) and try to balance them proportionally, too. This is impossible. Not just unlikely: impossible. Thus, even without “the best” or the “is qualified” premises, maximal diversity of physical characteristic is impossible.
Modified definitions of diversity are theoretically possible. If we say diversity (within a limited scope, like our university) means choosing members randomly from all humans without regard to any characteristic except life, then diversity is possible. I know of no individual who has ever claimed this is what they meant by “diversity”; and of course it is a definition that could only be cherished by anarchists. This definition can be saved by joining it with “the best” or the “is qualified” premises. Meaning that, for the task or scope at hand we pick randomly from the pool of people who are minimally qualified (each scope would have its own qualifications). “Picking randomly” has to be explicated: one method is first come, first serve (of the able). This sensible definition of diversity—random hiring of the competent—is evidently not what is meant by “diversity” as used by the sincere, however.
Another way to make maximal “diversity” possible, and the method loosely chosen by the sincere, is preferentially picking a limited number of characteristics to track, eschewing all others. I say “loosely” because scope drift often appears: just when you think you have nailed down a list of preferred traits, the sincere spring a new one on you. Once more, get them to agree in advance in writing of what they consider a worthy physical trait.
Like most do, pick at least race. Now, either race exists or it doesn’t (a tautology; further, I make no claim either way). If it does exist, it must be measurable: the sincere give many indications that it can be measured. Application forms for nearly every place of employment contain check boxes to indicate race. As far as I know, the information offered in these check boxes is not quantitatively verified. Therefore, given the preferential treatment accorded some races, it’s a wonder that more people haven’t hit upon the idea of checking the boxes of the race offered the most awards and advantages. If the sincere wish to deny a claim, they must then reveal whatever apparatus they have that they claim quantitatively, and without error, defines race. If this ever happens, it will be fascinating spectacle to behold. Just imagine a prominent member of the sincere claiming such eugenical prowess!
But this is carrying us too far afield. Suppose that, despite the check boxes etc., race does not exist. Skin color and the like surely does, though, and it is these traits that can be offered as proxies to something like race. Unfortunately, we run into the same problem as above. Skin color alone has nearly infinite gradations, thus true diversity of skin color is impossible. In any hiring scheme, some tones will be left out. And then we have to marry the secondary “racial” characteristics with skin color. The number of dimensions increases rapidly, and all hope of maximal diversity is lost.
Suppose we are not interested in “the best†premise and merely seek to stock our organization such that diversity of physical characteristic is maximized
What are you talking about? Who does this? Why are you invested in ‘disproving’ something no-one anywhere has ever advocated nor would ever advocate?
What are you doing here? Do you not actually understand what is meant by ‘diversity’? Are you trying (foolishly but knowingly) to attack the idea of diversity by attacking a simplified literal interpretation of what it could (but does not) mean?
How odd. The link to Part 1 is at p=3281 and the link to part 2 is p=3284 but 3282 and 3283 don’t exist. Does WordPress always jump like this?
Briggs,
Of course race exists. In fact I am a member of a very exclusive race consisting of only myself and my kid. In the interest of diversity, every employer should hire us. We will save them the overhead of actually providing a workplace for us by working from home. To further reduce overhead, we propose to manage ourselves. Direct deposit will also help reduce costs.
hmmm, It seems my proposal will efectively exterminate an ethnic subgroup of Unemployed members of my race. In the interest of diversity, so be it.
@Ender – help me out here, since you seem to think it is so simple: what is “diversity”? And more importantly, what is its purpose?
In particular, what are the boundaries? No more than three paragraphs is preferred, but knock yourself out if you feel like you need more.
Briggs,
Maybe you started at the wrong starting point with this “diversity” bit. The desire of some to endorse, accommodate & foster “diversity” naturally leads to the need to define what the term means.
But maybe the first question one needs to ask & answer is: “Why is diversity desirable?” A closely related question from that is, “How will we know we’ve achieved our goal?”
This is one of those, peculiar, instances where motives are illuminating.
Chances are very good that there is no objective reference point for ANY of the factors associated with “diversity.” In this regard the substance is absent completely & the whole concept & resulting actions are founded on a sort of ethereal intellectual fluff.
The diveristy fad is, fundamentally, a manifestation of the same psychology that the late Dr. Michael Crichton observed in parallels between those that practiced eugenics & those practicing global warming alarmism (see: “Why Politicized Science is Dangerous,” at the end of his book, “State of Fear”; or visit his website: http://www.crichton-official.com/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html ).
For those that want “diversity” a number of seemingly pragmatic considerations, like competence at the positions where “diversity” is demanded, are NOT significant factors…just mere incidentals. Its a curious psychology, and a toxic one at that. But unless that’s understood the debates are somewhat pointless. Its just in recent years psychologists & psychiatrists have really figured out what happening & why (e.g.: http://www.libertymind.com).
K
For one, it seems particularly insightful, perpsective on where so much social pessimission in so many areas (as perceived & complained by those on the Left) check out:
http://www.identitytheory.com/interviews/birnbaum102.html
Then use the ‘find’ feature with the following term: Did you coin the phrase ‘culture of despair’?
Then read the professor’s (Alston Chase) response.
@Ken
I think “diversity”, or more specifically “diversity programs” are a response to a backlash from the more old-fashioned “affirmative action”. The problem with affirmative action, it turned out, was that the framework it provided was clearly a zero sum game, thus there was always a “loser” in any outcome.
The “genius” of the gauzy “diversity” initiatives is that it is more inclusive (on the surface) and doesn’t single out any one “group” or “classification”. Who could be against that, right?
What I think Matt is trying to do with this series, is show that the so-called diversity is an even dumber idea than its predecessors.
Headline in Chronicle of Higher Ed: Many Biracial Students Game Racial-Classification Systems, Study Suggests; December 14, 2010. You may need a subscription for access: http://chronicle.com/article/Many-Biracial-Students-Game/125715/
“and all hope of diversity is lost.”
What a depressing ending!!!
Ender:
Affirmative Action certainly eschews “the best” premise in in order to increase diversity. Perhaps the term “maximized” is throwing you off? As in, diversity is a good thing only in moderation? As in, there can be such a thing as TOO MUCH diversity? Blasphemy!
In reverse order:
Adam H “Affirmative Action certainly eschews “the best†premise in in order to increase diversity. Perhaps the term “maximized†is throwing you off? As in, diversity is a good thing only in moderation? As in, there can be such a thing as TOO MUCH diversity? Blasphemy!”
Who’s opinion do you think you are mirroring here?
No one advocates absolute diversity, there is absolutely such thing as ‘too much diversity’, as discussed in the previous article. Frankly it looks like you’ve taken the word ‘diversity’, decided it means ‘absolute diversity of all kinds’ then projected that attitude onto others, and assumed they would be shocked if anyone didn’t want that. That is not what they think, you are arguing against something no-one believes.
The term “maximised” is absolutely the problem, as those who promote ‘diversity’ are not promoting “maximised diversity”, because as shown in his 1st post, that is a self evidently stupid position.
Mike B “help me out here, since you seem to think it is so simple: what is “diversityâ€? And more importantly, what is its purpose?
In particular, what are the boundaries? No more than three paragraphs is preferred, but knock yourself out if you feel like you need more.”
Where did I say it was simple? If you think I did then you misunderstand my position (no insult intended).
All I said was that you can’t claim to have disproven anything about “diversity” as people use it if you choose to disprove “maximised diversity”, which as he showed is an inherently silly and disprovable thing.
Both of these articles fail to show that “Diversity” is the dumbest idea ever, because they address a hypothetical interpretation of ‘Diversity’ that no-one has ever proposed.
As it is, diversity, as it is commonly recognised, is simply the recognition that the qualified and able candidates for any job are not all 100% white, male, heterosexual, protestants. Therefore if your workforce shows significantly homogenous characteristics that do not represent the demographic of the qualified applicants then you are discriminating against those who don’t fit the mold.
No one is saying that if your team doesn’t include at least one wheelchair bound Paraguayan person with Down’s Syndrome then you have failed. They are saying that the population of talented and qualified individuals is a diverse one (which it is) and that if your hiring practices don’t reflect that, then there is an irrational bias influencing it. And that is a bad thing.
So. Ender seems to be saying “diversity” is a euphonious term which is only able to be established by an uninterested outside observer, not something to be corporately measured and once and for all attained?
As an identical twin I claim efforts to attain “diversity’ unconstitutionally discriminate against my sibling and me. Discuss.
Yup. (Dead) Ender admits his biases — he’s a racist, sexist, hetrophobe, bigot. As if we didn’t already know!
And he (or she or it) demands that my business, institution, neighborhood, club, school, etc. include racist, sexist, heterophobe, bigots like Ender in the name of “diversity”. As if the failures of his or her kind are my fault, not theirs and theirs alone. Further, it is suddenly my responsibility to drag hisherits kind out of the hole they dug for themselves all by themselves, so that they can tarnish and ruin whatever of mine they can.
Folks like Ender are victims of their own galloping incompetency and perversions. They wish to infect the entire world with their self-inflicted diseases and victimize everyone else.
What “type” are you Ender? Transvestite? Wolfaboo? Junky? Pedophile? Be honest and specific. No hiding behind vague generalities. State your defect(s) for the record, please.
The problem being addressed (one anyway) is that a vague term is being applied–around it a number of social-policies are being implemented. While everybody kinda sorta knows what all the fuss is about, nobody involved has, necessarily, the same precision.
Alan Sokal demonstrated this & here’s a link to his famous paper:
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html
And, the parady revealed: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html
And more about his motives, for those interested, at: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/afterword_v1a/afterword_v1a_singlefile.html
Here’s the issue, partly somewhat: What A. Sokal did as a spoof a bunch of possibly-well-intended do-gooders are doing in all seriousness, blissfully ignorant of the inherent follies of their way.
It would be funny if it weren’t true.
@Ken
…”diversity, as it is commonly recognised, is simply the recognition that the qualified and able candidates for any job are not all 100% white, male, heterosexual, protestants. Therefore if your workforce shows significantly homogenous characteristics that do not represent the demographic of the qualified applicants then you are discriminating against those who don’t fit the mold.”
This statement helps Briggs make his case. According to this definition, a group is considered diverse only if it contains any collection of races other than white, heterosexual Protestants.
The diversity situations we all supposedly know about were initially created with race being the base issue. Then, it extends to sex, and from there to the handicapped, and God knows where else.
The defining criteria for any group being considered as adding diversity is that of victimhood . If your race or other category can be classified as a group of victims, either now or in the past, one of its members qualifies to knock a white, heterosexual Protestant out of the candidate pool.
Black people have historically been victims. Women have always been victimized in the workplace, laundries, and hair solons. Homosexual persons have a particularly difficult time trying to live life as other people. The list goes on, but you will never find a reason to call a white, heterosexual Protestant a victim.
I am a white, heterosexual Protestant. I am also overweight, unemployed, over sixty years of age, over-taxed and sexually underserved. Isn’t there something in these characteristics that will keep me from being thrown out of a candidate pool by some supposed victim? How can I become a victim so I can get a job? Can I be a victim of diversity?
Diversity is just a code word for quota.
I think this thing ran off the track when the term “human resource” was coined. I hated it on first encounter since it suggested to me that the commonality of my fellow employees was that they were at least human. Maybe I didn’t understand it.
@Ender
What you’ve defined is commonly known as “affirmative action”. And nobody talks about affirmative action anymore because it has suffered so many courtroom defeats as being “reverse discrimination”.
So Diversity is either a wolf in sheep’s clothing (likely), or something completely silly dreamed up by an unholy alliance between the PR department and the HR department of large corporations in concert with Executive Branch entities such as the EEOC.
OOPS! in my
bob says:
17 December 2010 at 12:01 pm
I was quoting Ender, not Ken. Sorry, folks.
One place where there is no room for diversity. Christians can’t teach science.
Doug M. Please don’t tell Mrs. Dweet, because that’s her degree and field. It’ll be big news to lots of other scientists who are Christians, then, but I suppose you are making that dogmatic statement based on your own belief in the scientific evidence you’ve personally educed?
9er,
She better keep her religeon to herself, lest her coleagues conclude that her Cristianity has poluted her reason. Didn’t you know, all Christians are young earth creationists. And, even if they promise not to teach such views, it might polulte their teaching anyway..
All
Sorry. The database, once more, was corrupted. It has just been repaired. If you have a comment that went missing over the last twelve hours, it was not deleted or censored, but it was irretrievably lost. Please re-submit.
I apologize for the delay in answering, but I only just now crawled out of bed (I am on the other side of the world from my usual haunt).
Diversity of physical characteristic is emphatically not the overriding ideal behind, say, diversity in the workplace. What about genetic diversity? The organism with greater genetic diversity reacts better to changes in its environment.
No, we can’t forgo a minimum competence requirement, and I don’t think anyone with any kind of sense would do that. You critiqued my example of a rugby team as needing a diverse set of physical characteristics – of course you need a basic standard of fitness to do this.
Doug M. Not “all” are tarred by that brush, ‘though many others may not be aware of this. “There are theoretical variations that avoid or mitigate a substantial number of the “conflicts proscribed by strict interpreters of the secular theory. Its fun to consider some of them, but then that’s another post.
Sorry, poor formatting, could you delete the previous one please?
49erDweet
“So. Ender seems to be saying “diversity†is a euphonious term which is only able to be established by an uninterested outside observer, not something to be corporately measured and once and for all attained?â€
It depends what you mean by this. If you are saying that good diversity is a theoretical balance that is hard, if not impossible, to measure, which is different in every situation, and thus impossible to attain and maintain to 100% effectiveness; then absolutely.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to achieve that. But this isn’t about my opinion on whether we should try, it’s about whether disproving “maximised diversity†is relevant to showing that diversity is the dumbest idea ever, so don’t let me distract from that.
“As an identical twin I claim efforts to attain “diversity’ unconstitutionally discriminate against my sibling and me. Discuss.â€
😀 I like it. I’ll get back to you.
Ron Number
“Yup. (Dead) Ender admits his biases — he’s a racist, sexist, hetrophobe, bigot. As if we didn’t already know!â€
The only bias you have revealed here is your susceptibility to reading into the words of people you don’t agree with that they hate you, rather than just have a different opinion to you.
Using a white male protestant workforce as an example of a homogenous workforce does not indicate that I hate people who have that characteristic any more than the fact I used Somalians as an example of a company that may be discriminating in its hiring practices means I hate Somalians. Just like DAV’s use of Blacks, Hispanics, Croatians or the Criminally insane as an example of special interest groups doesn’t mean he hates them.
I wrote a fairly long response to the second half of your post, then I remembered “Don’t Feed the Trollâ€. You have assumed I’m someone I’m not advocating all sorts of things that I did not mention in my post and do not believe. If you want to disagree with something I say, or something I believe then I’m happy to discuss it, but I’ve got no time to argue over stupid shit that I’m not advocating and don’t believe.
My only point so far made is : “All I said was that you can’t claim to have disproven anything about “diversity†as people use it if you choose to disprove “maximised diversityâ€,â€
If you think you can read my mind, go right ahead. You can’t. Unless you are referring to something I’ve actually typed here, you’re just making shit up, seeing a ‘me’ that only exists in your fevered imagination, and arguing against him.
FTR, there is nothing about me that even a sanctimonious prick like yourself would consider ‘wierd’
Ken, Sokal’s paper was great, but it didn’t show the same issue at all. Different groups may use diversity in different ways, have different methods of measuring it, different aims and different methods of achieving them, but each of them have definitions and measurements of their own, and they know what they are. All that shows is that there is no one vast majority opinion.
Sokal’s paper was about nonsense phrases passing peer review. Not different people having different measures.
“Here’s the issue, partly somewhat: What A. Sokal did as a spoof a bunch of possibly-well-intended do-gooders are doing in all seriousness, blissfully ignorant of the inherent follies of their way.
It would be funny if it wasn’t true”
It’s not true. Sokal’s spurious paper was a spoof of incomprehensible psuedoscientific postmodern philosophical papers, replete with laughable misuse of science, appeals to authority, vague left wing sounding politics. It worked so well as a spoof because it was absolute nonsense yet resembled other papers, and was accepted by peer review.
People who advocate diversity are merely people who have the opinion that lack of diversity is bad, for one of several different reasons. Different people have different measures of diversity, but they are mostly well defined, do not make any spurious appeals to authority and don’t misuse science in the same egregiously stupid way.
Bob
“According to this definition, a group is considered diverse only if it contains any collection of races other than white, heterosexual Protestants.â€
No. I see that I have made a mistake, I’m sorry. I used an example that clearly has made you all think of other people who’ve used similar sounding examples to make entirely different arguments
According to the definition I gave as an example a group is considered diverse only if it contains a representative sample of the pool of qualified applicants available.
Using this definition, perfect diversity everywhere all the time is not necessary or desirable. People are individuals, maybe all the black guys in the office just moved away all of a sudden. Maybe those three Asians were the best for the job, even though the whole team is Asian. But on a larger scale, if there is significant difference between the available and qualified canditate pool, and the ones who actually get hired, then that’s a problem.
It’s like if you’ve got a country in Africa, and though 20% of the qualified applicants for a post are white, oddly enough only 1% get it. There is a bias in their hiring, even though they deny it, and they have failed to be diverse. It’s nothing specifically to do with the group I used in my first example, it was that, an example.
“The defining criteria for any group being considered as adding diversity is that of victimhoodâ€
By who? That’s not my criteria, or that of anyone I know. The defining criteria of being considered to add to diversity is whether your group is under-represented in the hiring vs in the pool of qualified applicants.
An investment bank hires 50 Asians and one White guy out of a pool containing 200 qualified white guys and 60 qualified Asians. Then they keep on hiring Asians? Then any other ethnicity including white people would add to the diversity.
“Diversity is just a code word for quota.â€
Why’s it got to be one thing or the other? Some people who support diversity would do so with quotas, some would not. I for example would oppose quotas.
Don’t assume that everyone who thinks diversity is a good thing does it for the same reasons, or thinks it can be achieved with the same methods.
Mike B “What you’ve defined is commonly known as “affirmative actionâ€. And nobody talks about affirmative action anymore because it has suffered so many courtroom defeats as being “reverse discriminationâ€. “
No. No it’s not. Why is it not? Because “affirmitive action†is one way to attempt to achieve diversity, whereas I merely defined ‘diversity’ as some people use it and did not mention how you would achieve it
As it happens I think affirmitive action is a counterproductive and ham fisted method that is incapable of achieving the thing it sets out to. Other people may think different.
So I’ve responded directly to people who responded to me, but this isn’t a sustainable approach, already my posts are too long, but it would look rude, or like I couldn’t address it if I just skipped certain people’s posts or portions thereof.
In an effort to head this off at the pass I’m going to restate my only on topic point so far, and the one example I’ve made. Please address that if you want to disagree with something I believe. If there’s something specific in the above post that’s wrong though, feel free to address that, but if a lot of people post, I’ll have to get back to you.
Disproving “maximal diversity” does nothing to show that ‘diversity’ as people actually advocate it is the dumbest idea ever.
An example of what one person (me) would mean by diversity: A record of hiring a representative sample of the pool of qualified applicants. On average.
Useful note: This isn’t an advocation of any method of achieving diversity, thus is not the argument some of you are thinking of.
Remember, I agree with William M. Briggs.
He has said that hiring a diverse group of people that covers the range from “can do the job” through “can’t do the job is counterproductive and does not make sense. I agree, this is true.
The only thing I’ve said is that this is a statement that is self evident and trivially true. It doesn’t relate to what anyone is referring to when they discuss diversity. No one advocates doing this.
All,
Katie provided a link to a wonderful article whose subtitle is not, but should be, “Briggs is right.” Just the first three paragraphs (do not attempt to hold fluid in your mouth when reading):
Pingback: William M. Briggs, Statistician » Diversity: The Dumbest Idea Ever? Part I
All,
This is such a simple way of addressing everyone without actually addressing any of the people who have said something that may contradict me.
Katie has provided a link to a wonderful article whose subtitle is not, but should be, “Brigg’s underlying opinion that he is loath to reveal in argument, has been supported, and it has nothing to do with the points he’s made so far”
So William? Not got anything to say about the multitude of criticisms that have been levelled at your argument?
Ender,
Don’t be angry, but you haven’t really made any criticisms. You’ve done quite a bit of shouting—I can see your arms waving madly in the air—but you haven’t pointed out why something I said was flawed, other than to say, “This is flawed!” In a comment you just made to Part III, I asked you to define diversity for us. Do so before commenting further. Also read the comment I made, quoting a news article, in Part IV.
49er Dweet
“As an identical twin I claim efforts to attain “diversity’ unconstitutionally discriminate against my sibling and me. Discuss”
To start we can skip ‘unconstitutionally’, since I’m not American, so it’s irrelevant. Does it discriminate though? That’s an interesting question.
It depends really which method is used to obtain diversity.
If you go with a straight quota system, i.e. 20% of the population is black, so 20% of your hires must be black, then the hiring practises absolutely would discriminate against you, as a less qualified black person may be hired instead of you simply to fulfill the quota.#
If you instituted a quota based on the demographics of the qualified applicants, with weighting to experience and relevant qualifications, then you would not be discriminated against because you would have an equal chance with every other equivalently qualified applicant, including your twin. The only problem with this solution is that instituting such a quota for every job all the time just isn’t feasible.
There are all sorts of other systems which would and wouldn’t discriminate against identical twins. It’s an interesting consideration, I wonder if anyone else has ever brought that up.
Thanks for the reply.
“I can see your arms waving madly in the air
That’s not entirely my fault, after all I am a Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man
“you haven’t really made any criticisms”
This isn’t really fair though. I have made one criticism several times over, I’ve even bolded it the last few times:
Disproving “maximal diversity†does nothing to show that ‘diversity’ as people actually advocate it is the dumbest idea ever.
There’s plenty of possible responses to that:
– I’m getting there, I’ll disprove all conceptions of ‘diversity’ from part VI onwards
– Actually they do define “diversity” as ‘maximal diversity’
– You are banned
But you haven’t chosen any of them, you’ve just plowed on, repeatedly demonstrating the same thing.
I agree, as does everyone who supports diversity, “maximal diversity” is a self defeating idea. What is your argument beyond that.
Ender,
Are you missing purposely where I also define diversity proportionally, or can you genuinely not see it? In any case, I do claim, and also support, that some people (not you) do define diversity maximally, at least some times. I anticipate eagerly your definition.
Anyway, let’s keep our comments to the more recent posts, where they will be easier to track.
“Are you missing purposely where I also define diversity proportionally”
No. I missed it, and haven’t had a moment to have a look, between what I’m already doing, and writing these comments. I referred to it in the other comments.
“In any case, I do claim, and also support, that some people (not you) do define diversity maximally”
Interesting. I wouldn’t deny it out of hand, do you have any references or links to anyone who does?
I have defined one definition of “diversity” that sounds acceptable to me in a few earlier posts, I’ve linked it in some recent posts.
“Anyway, let’s keep our comments to the more recent posts, where they will be easier to track.”
Yes, sorry, I’ll direct all my subsequent comments to those posts.
Pingback: William M. Briggs, Statistician » Diversity: The Dumbest Idea Ever? Part V
Professor Schwartz has an interesting paper on diversity here.
http://www.sba.oakland.edu/faculty/schwartz/Clash%20of%20moralities.htm
Is DIVERSITY the reason I eat sushi prepared by Mexican cooks?
Pingback: William M. Briggs » Diversity Is Not Always Desirable Part III
the root word for diversity is DIVIDE.