next »

[cybil]

We keep hearing that diversity is a good thing that leads to a strong, vibrant academic environment. I believe this notion is misguided and has perverted a valid scientific principle by applying it to something that makes no sense. Let me explain from the standpoint of a biologist.

Strength through diversity is a fundamental principle of population genetics. All organisms in nature undergo stress from their environment. This stress could be changing climatic conditions, introduction of a new predator or exposure to a new pathogen. If a population is homogeneous, then it can only present a single uniform defense against this stress. Maybe that defense is successful and the population thrives. But if that single defense is not successful, the population goes extinct.

Populations with genetic diversity have multiple defenses against environmental stress. That's where the concept of "strength through diversity" comes from. Populations with multiple defenses have a much greater chance of surviving the environmental stress. If enough individuals within the population survive, they can reproduce to forestall extinction. (In scientific terms this is called population viability.)

In the scientific world strength through diversity has nothing to do with racial or gender distributions. Nevertheless, somehow genetic diversity got elevated to diversity in an academic department or in a classroom or in the workplace. Do our classrooms worry about survival? Do our academic departments live or die based on gender? I don't think so.

I can tell you that there is no such thing as a "woman's perspective on DNA sequencing" or a "black viewpoint on protein folding methods". The diversity comes from people with different ideas on attacking tough research problems---and that has absolutely nothing to do with race or gender.

I cringe everything I hear faculty say we need diversity in our departments because I know they mean racial diversity. Strength through diversity is at the genome level people---and that's where it should stay. Let's stop misusing science to further political agendas.

[kishter]

Well, of course, "diversity" is a word with more than merely biological meanings. 

[mgibbons19]

Though of course cultural diversity (not Cultural Diversity) works the same way. Each culture has a different set of socially constructed answers to its larger contexts. In the periods of centuries, different cultures will respond to pressures differently, and some will prevail. Good for humanity. Bad for the losers.

It is one of the reasons apocolyptical doomers are so fun to listen to. Global warming will not kill us all, Peak oil will not kill us all, There's too much diversity.

And no, this is not what they mean by Cultural Diversity in the classroom.

[foolstop]

Having decided to ignore the torrent of affirmative action forms I have received in searching for a job, I feel that the way academic institutions define diversity is particularly narrow.  These forms, and presumably these policies, do not effectively address class diversity or sexual preference issues, for example.  It is conceivable that genuinely diverse populations are not being helped by such policies, and perhaps even overlooked as Universities strive to address the problem of diversification, or the need to be seen to be doing so in a measurable way. 

I also agree with the initial poster in the sense that I don't necessarily think that diversity, in the narrow and quantitative sense, is valuable per se.  The results and effects of diversification are manifest: exchange of ideas, disagreements can lead to new ideas, and tolerance. Difference, in itself, can surely just as easily lead to intolerance, prejudice, and stagnation of ideas.

Perhaps more emphasis needs to be placed on broadening the scope of the definition (and the questionnaires that are designed to have done with the issue in some quarters), and on the implementation and engagement of diversity in academia?

[soupeater]

I can tell you that there is no such thing as a "woman's perspective on DNA sequencing" or a "black viewpoint on protein folding methods". The diversity comes from people with different ideas on attacking tough research problems---and that has absolutely nothing to do with race or gender.

I beg to differ.  Listen carefully to how different people use language, draw analogies, conduct research, collaborate, communicate-- it's quite different.  And while one has been historicallymore successful than the others, that seems to have more to do with who is in power than who has good insights.

[pyshnov]

cybil:

Populations with multiple defenses have a much greater chance of surviving the environmental stress.

Wrong, because only the part of the population that has a particular, needed for the survival "diversity", will survive, not the whole population. You can even laugh at the result if you apply it to "diversity" in humans: yes, the human population will survive, but it will appear all "green" or whatever. That's not the same population, dear.
(I also don't think anyone argued for Diversity from this "biological' point.)

Having said this, I  believe that diversity, say taking people from different areas of the world, would be beneficial to science. Different people's psychology, culture can offer different views and interpretation of facts, and they clearly have different abilities.

The problem with Diversity is not this. The problem is that Diversity/AA is a corrupt system where the legitimate goal (the paragraph above) is of a small value, while the illegitimate goal - brutal injustice and social revolution - is the real goal behind the slogan.

What kind of diversity is on the agenda today? The wrong kind. The academia shows increasing conformism, more taboos, more power to administration, etc. We are seeing the implementation of formal, dehumanising, techno-methods of teaching and learning, increasing numbers of students making it impossible to have individual approach, etc., etc. We are seeing statistical approach to the scientific questions gone mad, excluding logic, leading to ridiculous superficiality and simply to fraud. We are seeing researchers afraid to talk to each other for fear of stealing ideas.

And, with this transformation in universities, all the good diversity is gone!
No one has any interst in any relevant to research or teaching individual differences! Otherwise, this forum on diversity would have entirely different topics!
The current diversity is a dog fight for positions and money, nothing else whatsoever, let's be frank about it. Suvival of street-smart scoundrels - that's what it is about.

[beacon1]

The problem with Diversity is not this. The problem is that Diversity/AA is a corrupt system where the legitimate goal (the paragraph above) is of a small value, while the illegitimate goal - brutal injustice and social revolution - is the real goal behind the slogan.

What kind of diversity is on the agenda today? The wrong kind. The academia shows increasing conformism, more taboos, more power to administration, etc. We are seeing the implementation of formal, dehumanising, techno-methods of teaching and learning, increasing numbers of students making it impossible to have individual approach, etc., etc. We are seeing statistical approach to the scientific questions gone mad, excluding logic, leading to ridiculous superficiality and simply to fraud. We are seeing researchers afraid to talk to each other for fear of stealing ideas.

And, with this transformation in universities, all the good diversity is gone!
No one has any interst in any relevant to research or teaching individual differences! Otherwise, this forum on diversity would have entirely different topics!
The current diversity is a dog fight for positions and money, nothing else whatsoever, let's be frank about it. Survival of street-smart scoundrels - that's what it is about.

I agree with this point. True diversity would encourage diversity of opinion. One poster in the previous post claimed that the whole goal of diversity was to keep departments from all looking like Agent Smith (from the Matrix). Gender and Race aside, I believe departments and there individual philosophical/political beliefs, are more a like than ever. This is a problem because there exist no crucible of new thought. It is sorta like that Hillary Clinton ad where everyone in mesmerized in front of the movie screen. Everyone is wearing the same clothes, with the same blank stare on their faces, without a thought of their own. Dissention is not encouraged or accepted. Research, for the most part, has taken a monolithic course in the area most accepted by the department/field. People are shunned or worse attacked for stepping off prescribed paths.

[jackie_d]

The problem with Diversity is not this. The problem is that Diversity/AA is a corrupt system where the legitimate goal (the paragraph above) is of a small value, while the illegitimate goal - brutal injustice and social revolution - is the real goal behind the slogan.

Damn you, Pyshov. You discovered our plan.

In 15 years we the people of the Revolutionary Affirmative Action Diversity Squads will make the United States a Communist State.

Our strategy? We'll occupy the Academia and then from there spread the word of the revolution across the country.

For now, we don't want to take over the world, we just want to take over English departments.


The revolution will be pink.
(and brown, if Acrimone agrees to be our Subcomandante)

R.A.A.D.S.

[beacon1]

The problem with Diversity is not this. The problem is that Diversity/AA is a corrupt system where the legitimate goal (the paragraph above) is of a small value, while the illegitimate goal - brutal injustice and social revolution - is the real goal behind the slogan.

I think Pyshnov I speaking more to deliberate efforts made by some to incorporate PC policies with an attempt to shift the political structure toward communism. I'm guessing here, but what Pyshnov is describing is that the powers that want the shift say they want one thing that is appealing to the masses (diversity, equality, civility), but ultimately seek an ulteirior goal of ingratiating their own power base. The masses buy the propoganda that is being sold to them because: 1) it taps in to repressed anger and hostility they have about being treated poorly in society, and 2) it has a humanitarian feel that anyone would want to embrace. In monetary terms, they want goverment to become larger, not with the intent to achieve their stated goal which is to right social injustice, but moreso because they then control the purse strings and have more power. This is one reason why you will never see a school voucher system in this country (even if it were just for poor minority students). That would pull power and leverage away from the politicians.

It's all about money. Who has it and who wants it.

[pyshnov]

beacon1,
The thing is simple. In pluralist society power belongs to many, many people. The public opinion (media) is expressed by many, many people. There is no way any "group" can take over.

But, in totalitarian society the scum can take over easily.
(You might say it's tautology, but it is not - the scum is arguing for communist principles without saying it wants to take over. It appeals to every weakness in individuals who would simply be happier if they are ruled by somebody else.)

Examples from this scheme: If you just complicate the system, many more people will give up the idea of self-governing. And there are thousands of such mechanisms that direct people toward totalitarian system. Raising the idiotic question of inequality, making it an issue, etc. is one of these mechanisms - people start fighting each other instead of respecting each other's behavior that does not violate the law. And, they demand from the higher authority to make "justice", to impose on themselves rules that eventually lead to killing all dissent.

History clearly shows that such system will spare nobody. The activists will become targets in their turn.

[beacon1]

History clearly shows that such system will spare nobody. The activists will become targets in their turn.

I believe this.