“Diversity” = Proportional Representation

It is now so widely understood that “diversity” does not mean diversity that it’s hardly necessary to keep mentioning it. Such expressions as “How many diverse students are enrolled at X University?” and “what proportion of the staff is diverse?” have become commonplace.

As these expressions reveal, many people now treat “diverse” simply as a synonym for minority or, more often, black. Another, somewhat inconsistent meaning of “diversity” has also emerged, however, and it is worth mentioning if for no other reason than that its proponents so often hotly deny it: “diversity” as proportional representation. (And, of course, the only way to achieve proportional representation is to employ explicit or implicit quotas, sometimes known as “goals” or “targets.”)

A good example appeared, in passing, in my immediately preceding post describing the schizophrenic reaction to the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative in an article in the Arizona Republic.Let’s look at that example in more detail.

Consider carefully the following paragraphs from the article:

Tempe has placed an emphasis on diversifying the city staff in recent years. The city came under fire after independent diversity audits, prompted by accusations of racism within city ranks that led to a multimillion dollar lawsuit settlement, noted a lack of women and racial minorities within departments such as police, fire and public works.

Of the city’s 1,634-person work force, 68 percent of the staff is male, according to an analysis of the city staff from fiscal year 2005-2006. In contrast, 52 percent of Tempe’s residents are male.

The city’s staff is also 72 percent White, whereas the city’s population is 66 percent White, according to that same analysis.

Since Tempe “came under fire” for numbers like these, and as a result has “placed an emphasis on diversifying the city staff,” the assumption here, quite clearly, is that a city work force that is 6% more white and 16% more male than the city population is not appropriately “diverse.”

The lesson here is equally clear: if you live in Arizona or Missouri or Colorado or Oklahoma (the “Super Tuesday of Equality” states, so far, that will have non-discrimination initiatives on their November 2008 ballots, if enough signatures are collected) and believe that all individuals should be treated by the state and its agencies “without regard” to race, ethnicity, or gender, then vote in favor of the civil rights initiative in your state.

If, on the other hand, you prefer to be treated primarily as a representative of your race, ethnicity, gender so that all public institutions can become appropriately “diverse,” i.e., proportional, then vote against the civil rights initiative.