More than skin deep

Matthew White

Diversity is a perfect example of how liberal doublespeak changes the meaning of a word.

Modern liberalism says diversity is related to the color of our skin, the texture of our hair and the box we check on an application. As usual, modern liberalism is wrong.

Suppose that a group of friends meet for coffee. One of the friends is black, one is white and another is Asian. The Asian and white friends are female, and the black friend is a gay male. On its face, modern liberalism would tell you that the group is “diverse.”

This, however, couldn’t possibly be true.

For one thing, you’re asking the black friend to be a representative of, and speak for, every black person in America. And, you’re asking the same thing of the Asian and white friends. How can one person ever possibly speak accurately for millions of other people who just happen to share the same skin color?

The truth is, they couldn’t. Diversity based solely upon skin color is racial stereotyping. It’s making the assumption that just because people share the same skin color they must think alike. This is the sort of shallowness that we should avoid when thinking about the different races because it leads references like “you people.”

Instead, true diversity is based upon the content of our ideas. The white friend and the black friend might very well agree on the topic of conversation. And, if they do, it pretty much eliminates the concept of diversity. If one white person and one black person agree, it’s exactly as diverse as one white person agreeing with another white person. Or, if all three agree, it’s exactly as diverse as three Asian people agreeing. The skin colors of the people have nothing to do with the diversity of the group. Instead, it is the differences in the content of their opinions that creates the diversity.

This is where the liberal doublespeak comes in. Instead of understanding the true nature of a complex subject, liberals are content to take the narrow approach. While it might be satisfying to the eyes to see a group of different types of people sitting at a table, and it might be easy to call them “diverse,” it doesn’t necessarily make it so. Instead, because people tend to attract one another with similar interests, the group may very well be less diverse than a group of people with the same skin color interested in different things.

Ultimately, the true goal of diversity of races is to create a diversity of opinions. And, if this is the case, maybe we shouldn’t become preoccupied with the skins colors at the table. We should select people for their differences in ideas and not for the differences in skin colors. We shouldn’t assume that any one person can speak for their entire race, and we shouldn’t ask anyone to do it.

Diversity is not an easy subject to understand, and it’s not a problem easily solved. Political correctness takes away our ability to even talk about the subject.

If we’re ever going to have true diversity, we’re going to have look deep into ourselves and accept people who are different than us and who we disagree with. True diversity is acceptance of another’s point of view.

Matthew White is a senior magazine journalism major and point/counterpoint columnist for the Daily Kent Stater. Contact him at [email protected].