Dorr-versity
The real story behind another Bush nominee holdup.

Mr. Clegg is general counsel at the Center for Equal Opportunity.
June 1, 2001 8:50 a.m.

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.