|
 nce upon a time,
if you read the words "diversity" and "farming" in the same sentence,
you could be pretty sure that the article would be about crop rotation.
Those days, of course, are long gone. See the word "diversity" now,
in any context, and you know it's going to be another article about
melanin content and national origin.
On Thursday this week, the New York Times and Washington
Post both reported that the Bush administration's nominee to
head the Agriculture Department's rural-development programs, Thomas
C. Dorr, was under fire for comments that the Congressional Black
Caucus, NAACP, and Black Farmers Association fear may show him to
be anti-diversity.
On December 11, 1999, Dorr was videotaped at a meeting at which
the economic successes of three Iowa counties — populated largely
by descendants of Dutch Protestant and German Catholic settlers
— were being discussed. Said Mr. Dorr: "And you'll notice when
you get to looking at them that they're not particularly diverse.
At least not, uh, ethnically diverse. They're very diverse in their
economic growth, but they're very focused, uh, have been very non-diverse
in their ethnic background and their religious background, and there's
something there that has enabled them to succeed and succeed very
well."
The quoted statement underscores, in an unintentionally amusing
way, that some kinds of diversity are politically correct and relevant
but some aren't. It is at least a little odd that Dutch Protestants
and German Catholics are now thrown together and considered to be
just a bunch of white Christian dudes. Wasn't there some recent
unpleasantness when the Dutch and Germans were shooting at each
other with guns, and some less recent unpleasantness when Protestants
and Catholics in Europe were shooting at each other with bows and
arrows? No matter: Now they're all just "white," unless they're
lesbians — no more diverse than those other white guys, Israelis
and Palestinians.
Likewise, Americans with ancestors from Cuba, Mexico, Puerto Rico,
and Brazil may have absolutely nothing in common when it comes to
income, religion, language, politics, or culture, but they're all
"Hispanic" because those ancestors come from countries that centuries
ago were settled — probably a politically incorrect concept
— by people who came from somewhere on the Iberian peninsula.
Makes them all the same. Ditto for Filipinos, Japanese, Chinese,
Indians, and Pakistanis — they may have hated each other for
centuries, but in this country, by God, they're all "Asians and
Pacific Islanders" as far as government bureaucracies, university
admission officials, and the civil-rights establishment are concerned.
The Bush administration has announced that Mr. Dorr has its "full
support," and an unnamed source there said that Dorr's words have
been taken out of context, since he had simply been pointing out
a demographic fact, not suggesting a causal relationship. Now, it
is quite possible that the words were taken out of context, as I'll
discuss in a moment, but the words quoted from the videotape seem
to make it pretty clear that he was in fact suggesting a causal
relationship.
I haven't seen the videotape, but it wouldn't surprise me if Mr.
Dorr brought up the lack of diversity in these three successful
counties because, earlier in the discussion, someone had been talking
about how diversity was essential for economic success — a
common, if false, platitude these days, especially in academic settings
(the meeting was of the Iowa State University board of regents).
Oh yeah, says Dorr, well looky here: Economic success and no diversity
in sight. So there.
Satisfying as it may have been, in making this observation Mr. Dorr
touched the third rail of American politics. Elizabeth Salinas Newby,
administrator of the Iowa Division of Latino Affairs, has retorted:
"It sounds like he's trying to say diversity isn't important for
growth. It is exactly diversity that has helped this state grow."
So who's right: Dorr, if in fact he was saying that lack of diversity
can breed economic success, or Salinas Newby, who says that, to
the contrary, diversity helps in succeeding economically? The answer
is, to some extent both are right, but mostly both are wrong.
There may be some situations where diversity can help an enterprise.
In a sales operation, for instance, it may make it marginally more
likely that companies will develop insights into how best to market
products to some demographic groups — although, I hasten to
add, it might not: Non-Hispanics can learn how to market to Hispanics,
and there are as many differences among Hispanics as there are similarities.
There are, conversely, probably some situations where a lack of
diversity can help. Having a common heritage and set of values,
customs, and manners can foster greater trust, better morale, and
closer teamwork. It also cuts down on interracial and interethnic
conflict, as well as other potential distractions. This point should
be borne in mind by those who rely on pseudo-studies to support
diversity through affirmative action. If these studies, and the
benefits from diversity they purport to find, are viewed as sufficient
to justify racial and ethnic preferences favoring "underrepresented"
groups, then it follows that similar studies about the costs of
diversity will be sufficient to justify racial and ethnic discrimination
against those groups.
But in the vast majority of economic enterprises, diversity or lack
of diversity is either completely irrelevant, cuts in both directions,
or makes only a marginal difference. Any advantages or disadvantages
will be completely swamped by factors having nothing to do with
skin color or ancestry, like talent, intelligence, education, and
willingness to work hard.
Whether one succeeds or fails as a farmer in Iowa will be influenced
much more by the weather than the color of one's neighbor. What
one learns and achieves, as a student at Iowa State will hinge on
one's talent and teachers, not the distant ancestry of the other
kids in the lecture hall. But no matter how the debate over Mr.
Dorr's nomination plays out, one doubts that anyone involved will
fail to genuflect before the altar of diversity.
|
