The Mystery of American Diversity
Through the general lens of the American left, the broad-scale attack on the DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) infrastructure in the federal government, media, academia, non-profits, and corporations is an expected backlash against attempts to diversify and design more equitable and inclusive spaces for those who, for much of U.S. history have been left out, disregarded as second-class or assumed to be unworthy. On the right, DEI, even if well-intentioned, has become an illiberal capture of American institutions grounded in an anti-white ideology of oppressed and oppressors, reinforced by intersectional cancel culture, speech codes, and compelling workers to sign diversity statements as a condition of being hired.
Certainly, Trump blaming the tragic helicopter-jet crash at Reagan National Airport on diversity hires before knowing the facts was par for the irresponsible course, but, to be fair, several Republican lawmakers cautioned against jumping to conclusions. DEI is often a convenient scapegoat; take, for instance, the Utah representative who blamed DEI for the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse in Baltimore last March. According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, some employees blame DEI for their failures at work rather than looking in the mirror, and some employers, to avoid difficult conversations, blame DEI requirements when certain workers, often male and white-racialized, don’t advance.
What has DEI’s impact been on the changing composition of the workforce? The WSJ enacted a study of 13 million jobs in S&P 500 firms and reported the results last Friday.
As a radical moderate, I gravitate to the center of the political spectrum while emphasizing the power and potential of cultural development over partisan politics, especially at their ideological extremes. So, from the center-right, I agree with author and co-founder of The Dispatch, Jonah Goldberg:
Intersectional progressives see the dismantling of DEI as oppressive and discriminatory. Oppressed groups deserve special treatment—'equity’ not just ‘equality.’ So the removal of a subsidy is indistinguishable from discrimination in their worldview. But that’s not how large numbers of Americans see it. America is a liberal country and culture. Inherent in that liberalism is the idea that we’re all equal in the eyes of God and government, and that means the state should not be in the business of picking winners and losers—based on race or creed or gender identity.
I also agree with John McWhorter from the center-left, who, while arguing that “DEI Must Change,” spoke against anti-DEI overreach by the Trump administration:
One can be utterly revolted by the way DEI has been practiced of late while still supporting institutions that use outreach strategies to identify applicants less likely to come to their attention via normal channels. Organizations should not be barred from investigating possible injustice or—as Trump’s executive order endeavors to inhibit—to sharing data with third-party DEI entities.
Surely the idea is not that teaching about Black history, including the profound role that racism has played in it, is ‘radical and wasteful,’ to quote what the order targets. That our country openly addresses Black history is a badge of honor and a sign of compassion. And yet Trump’s executive order has already made the U.S. Air Force feel it necessary to take off-line a teaching video on Tuskegee Airmen. A change like that is grievous.
Unfortunately, voices and perspectives that could enrich the diversity discourse are lost in the current culture-war environment. For instance, the late pioneer of workplace diversity, R. Roosevelt Thomas (no relation), who in 1991 authored a book titled Beyond Race and Gender: Unleashing the Power of Your Total Workforce by Managing Diversity. Thomas argued that workplace diversity—of identity, thought, and style—naturally brings tension. When managed wisely, rather than increasing division and dissension, such tension can be leveraged by teams and organizations. When DEI, on a large scale, doubled down on identity markers and identity politics rather than trying to move beyond them—as per Thomas’ book title—the resulting backlash shouldn’t have been surprising.
Leveraging diversity works well when complex tasks are performed by what scholar of diversity and complexity Scott Page calls “cognitively diverse teams.” In his work, Page presents evidence that great teams in the Knowledge Economy bring a “diversity bonus” on non-routine complex jobs that can’t be done alone, involving creative tasks such as “problem-solving, predicting outcomes, designing policies, evaluating proposals, or undertaking research.”
An Omni-American Perspective
Albert Murray’s views on diversity in The Omni-Americans are instructive. Murray believed that although the people of the United States shared a “common destiny and deeper interests,” they were “being misled by misinformation to insist on exaggerating their ethnic differences. The problem is not the existence of ethnic differences, as is so often assumed, but the intrusion of such differences into areas where they do not belong. Ethnic differences are the very essence of cultural diversity and national creativity."
This perspective is crucial to empower civic leaders in America to leverage and manage our diversity as an asset, not a liability. Murray also wrote that ". . . the function of education in the United States is to develop citizens who are fully oriented to cultural diversity—and are not hung up on race" and that
. . . .no image is more appropriate to the motto E Pluribus Unum than that of a mainstream fed by an infinite diversity of tributaries.
—Albert Murray, South to a Very Old Place
Leaders must manage workplace diversity well, and the same holds if scaled to the national level. However, cultural diversity in our American liberal democracy has proven mysterious.
. . . it would seem that for many, our cultural diversity is as indigestible as the concept of democracy in which it is grounded. For one thing, principles in action are enactments of ideals grounded in a vision of perfection that transcends the limitations of death and dying. By arousing in the believer a sense of the disrelation between the ideal and the actual, between the perfect word and the errant flesh, they partake of mystery. Here, the most agonizing mystery sponsored by the democratic ideal is that of our unity-in-diversity, our oneness in manyness.
—Ralph Ellison, “The Little Man at Chehaw Station”
Feb. 20th Conference: Creating a Future without Race
One puzzle in the mystery of American cultural diversity is how to confront race and racism today, not ignoring or downplaying the past while yet moving beyond its clutches. On Feb. 20th, I’ll respond to this conundrum via a presentation titled “Deracialization and the Omni-American Vision” as part of a virtual conference, “Abolishing Racism: Creating a Future Without Race.” Register here: tinyurl.com/bahai-future
The conference, sponsored by the Bahá’í Chair for World Peace at the University of Maryland and co-organized by Dr. Sheena Mason, features scholars, writers, and thinkers pursuing how the practice of racialization, a racial worldview, and a belief in race all embolden racism. The speakers and panelists will discuss ways and means to untangle the Gordian knot of race (and racism) through the disciplines of science, philosophy, theology, art, music, and the humanities.
For the schedule for the full-day virtual conference, click here.