Diversity is the antithesis of homogeneity

Diversity has surfaced as the topic du jour in recent editions of the Cape Gazette.  It is thrust upon the readers by some who I feel are suffering from selective perceptual displacement.  That is, these people have made a decision to perceive each and every situation through the filter of race and have rejected any other scenario.  One could argue that people so inclined, who consistently call others racist, since their only lens for seeing is through race, are themselves racist.  Isn’t demanding that all decisions be made on the basis of race practicing the very definition of racism?

Let’s ask another question.  What really is diversity?  It may be argued that diversity is the antithesis of homogeneity. If so, the diversity door must swing both ways.  For instance, if one wants diversity in Chicago, why are there no whites in any of the multitude of leadership positions in Chicago’s political hierarchy, police department, or fire department?  For those who argue that leadership should represent the populace in terms of ethnicity, are there no whites living in Chicago?  This thinking can continue.  Why are there so few Black swimmers on the U.S. Olympic swim team, so few whites playing in the National Basketball Association, so few Blacks playing in the National Hockey League, so few whites playing in the defensive secondary of the National Football League?  And why limit the discussion to only Black and white?  Why not also include Native American, Hispanic, Asian, etc.?  The analysis could go on and on.

The question is why?  Sometimes it is because of decisions by voters, sometimes because individuals are not interested, sometimes because individuals do not have the background, experience, or skillset, and sometimes because of racial motives, by people of all ethnicities.  Of course, any intentional effort to limit participation of any ethnic group in an institution, organization, or activity should be quickly suppressed.

What is the result of the constant emphasis of one-way diversity on the part of some people in an institution or community?  I believe it forces people away from the beauty of natural and authentic behavior in their daily interactions with others.  Rather, individuals’ behavior is governed by an artificial racial analysis that guides each interaction.  When two ethically different individuals participate in a chance encounter on the sidewalk, the introspection becomes, “Should I make eye contact or not?  Should I say hello or not?  What will be the racial implications of my doing or not doing so?”  It goes further and includes an interpretation of the other individual’s behavior.  “Why didn’t he look at me?  He didn’t respond to my hello.  What does that mean?”

People pushed into these situations tend to become reserved and withdrawn and hesitant to interact at all.  The epitome of this is the reluctance to discuss matters of race at all, often for fear of offending someone or being called a racist.  But, as African American Southerner, columnist, and talk show host David Person wrote, “Talking about race is not the same as being racist.”

The choice between one-way diversity and the natural interactions between two people becomes clear.  As for me, I believe we should all just be nice to each other, to understand that there exist conflicting views, to appreciate differences, and to work toward goodwill and friendship.  Or, as the second page of my children’s book, “Hi! I’m Elvis,” reads, “I like meeting new friends.  Most of them look a lot different from me.  Some are a different color, others are bigger, and still others have a different kind of hair.  It is important to make them all happy.”