OPINION & EDITORIAL
A downside to diversity, an upside to change
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ryan Masse:
- Rockin' around the what? (November 29, 2007)
- A downside to diversity, an upside to change (November 16, 2007)
- High schoolers can handle ads (November 8, 2007)
- Health providers must list prices (November 1, 2007)
- Employee policies in need of upgrade (October 25, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Don't bother filling diversity positions (December 5, 2007)
- Thank you, Dr. Spear (October 26, 2005)
- Focus on students when dealing with diversity (September 12, 2002)
- Diversity isn't just color (September 7, 2001)
- Diversity initiatives misguided (April 24, 2006)
by Ryan Masse
Friday, November 16, 2007
Diversity has a downside.
Preposterous? In the world of academia, where administrators eat, sleep and breathe the concept of multiculturalism, such a statement surely is. Yet it was one of the academy's own, Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam — a self-described liberal, no less — who reached the seemingly blasphemous conclusion in a study released earlier this year in the journal Scandinavian Political Studies.
Culling data from nearly 30,000 interviews in 41 sites across the U.S., Mr. Putnam found diversity exerts a negative effect on a host of civic and social indicators in communities. In racially diverse neighborhoods, people volunteer less. They vote less often. They have fewer friends. They give less to charity. They stay at home more often. They harbor more negative thoughts about their local governments. On the whole, people trust each other less — and not only members of other races, but even those of the same race as themselves.
According to Mr. Putman, the trend applies to communities both large and small. It applies regardless of a whether a community is rich or poor, or whether it has a high or low crime rate.
Most people likely shrug when they learn of Mr. Putnam's findings. If world history can be boiled down to one blanket statement, it could be this: People don't always get along with people who are different from themselves. Given a choice, people generally like to be around people with whom they are similar. Mr. Putnam's empirical findings hardly speak to any revelation.
Yet his research reminds us that there are challenges to be faced by any country with a diversifying population. Cultural issues can't just be summarily dismissed as irrelevant.
But before you award the 21st century to a homogenous country — say, oh, China — be aware that people do eventually come to trust each other and form new bonds. In the long run, diversity leads to a vitality that is positive, according to Mr. Putnam. The United States will be quite all right.
The question, then, is how to handle increasing diversity before its benefits become visibly apparent. It's not an easy question to answer.
There seems to be one approach, however, that must be rejected. It's called multiculturalism, and it's championed by almost every university administrator in the land, along with assorted others on the left.
Under the multiculturalist approach, people are encouraged to identify first and foremost as members of their particular race. Assimilation is treated as a dirty word. Discussions of race and ethnicity are encouraged, but only if the dialogue fits a certain worldview and level of political correctness. Members of certain races are assumed to be oppressed, which logically requires that others be oppressors — a tacit assumption usually, though occasionally explicitly, as evidenced by a recent housing program policy at the University of Delaware that amounted to nothing short of indoctrination.
To drive a further wedge between people, multiculturalists insist on treating different races disparately. When decisions could be left exclusively to the merits, such as school admissions, they inject race as a factor.
Given Mr. Putnam's research findings, the multiculturalist approach would seem, on the surface, to be an appropriate plan of action. Since different cultures are a little wary of each other, why not bring everybody together and talk things through?
The problem with the approach is that diversity, simply for the sake of diversity, isn't much good. Happy, productive, diverse communities can't be manufactured — they must come organically. Residential patterns in this country — currently largely de facto segregated — will change over time, but it won't be an instant process.
Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court struck down enrollment plans in Seattle and Louisville that assigned students to particular city schools because of their race, such that each school would maintain a certain racial mix. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts remarked simply, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
Mr. Robert's statement drives home a certain point: Instead of accentuating differences — as is the essence of multiculturalism — commonality must be sought. Then, and only then, can the inconvenient findings of Mr. Putnam's research be overcome.
Ryan Masse (rmasse@badgerherald.com) is a first-year law student.
Anonymous (November 16, 2007 @ 8:33am):
Excellent article, Ryan!!! Finally someone with intelligence appears on the page of this paper.
Anonymous (November 16, 2007 @ 11:52am):
Good job Ryan. Great article and well written. I wish everyone would take this to heart. The only question I have is... has it ever been shown that "organically" produced heterogeneous communities are superior to homogeneous communities?
Anonymous (November 16, 2007 @ 2:13pm):
A few comments:
1)Mr. Putnam's research established a correlation, not a causal connection, between more diverse neighborhoods and the issues mentioned such as voting less, having less friends, etc. So it doesn't follow from his research that more diverse neighborhoods cause less voting, less volunteering, etc. One needs to do an experiment in order to establish causal connections.
2)I think that the reason we need a multicultural education is because when done effectively it addresses how things are in this country. Yes people shouldn't be discriminated against based on race or ethnicity, but the fact is that people are, Yes race and ethnicity don't matter, but yet they do. Tell all the people who experience racism every day in this country that race doesn't matter. The immediate purpose of an effective multicultural education is to reduce the institutional racism that students experience in the school system through school reform, in order to give students of different races and ethnicities greater equality in the schools. The indirect purpose is to change students, who can then influence their communities and the country as a whole.
3)Opponents of multicultural education mostly say education should emphasize what we all share, and not emphasize the distinct oppression, experiences, and contributions that various groups and individuals have faced or made throughout U.S. history, because focusing on this would divide us rather than bring us together. It doesn't necessarily follow that emphasizing differences between group's will lead to greater racial and ethnic division. It seems just as likely that the opposite would be true and that it would lead to less racial and ethnic division.
4)The idea that has been perpetuated since the U.S.'s founding seems to contrast "assimilation" with "identifying first with one's race or ethnicity" (an idea that is stated and exemplified in this article). It implies not only that one can leave their race or ethnicity behind (which is impossible since it's impossible to be "cultureless" or leave one's culture since culture is a part of who we all are), but also that this is what's valued: people who identify with their ethnicity or race when in their homes or on weekends, but then for the most part put it aside when engaging with the rest of society. If everyone in this country assimilates, including all Whites of European ancestry, what is it that we're to assimilate to?
Anonymous (November 16, 2007 @ 2:27pm):
The reason race should be included as one of many factors in determining college admissions is because in this country non-white people have been made disadvantaged because of their race. Race is used as a reason to discriminate against people, so we can at least also use it as one of the reasons to advance people. Doing this doesn't make up for or excuse the discrimination, but it's something that can be done to admit there's an institutional racism problem in this country that has lead to many people being disadvantaged and having to work extra hard to be able to apply to college.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
