Since affirmative action has come to be described, and defended, as “diversity,” the word diverse no longer means diverse: “1. differing from one another, unlike — people with diverse interests. 2. composed of distinct or unlike elements or qualities — a diverse population.” Now, because of “diversity”-justified preferential treatment, the term has come to refer a definitional characteristic of those who are intended to provide diversity (in the old sense) to others.
“It is now so widely understood that ‘diversity’ does not mean diversity that it’s hardly necessary to keep mentioning it,” as I mentioned here years ago. “Such expressions as ‘How many diverse students are enrolled at X University?’ and ‘what proportion of the staff is diverse?’ have become commonplace.” Here is a typical example of the new meaning of “diversity” — a law school’s “Office of Diversity Affairs” sponsors a “Diverse Admitted Students Day” on which “admitted students of color were invited to spend an afternoon and evening with John Marshall Law student and faculty representatives.”
This distortion beyond recognition of the meaning of “diversity” is, though annoying, one of the lesser transgressions of racial preferences. That misusage has now leaked out of academia and begun to affect analysis in other areas, resulting in some rather interesting linguistic contortions. Consider, for example, the first two articles (here and here) in a series on the new Congress in the National Journal, based on demographic analyses by Next America.
That analysis, according to the first article just linked,
segmented House districts based on two factors: whether the share of their nonwhite population exceeded or trailed the national average of 37.6 percent, and whether the share of their white population with at least a four-year college degree exceeded or trailed the national average of 33.08 percent….
Sorting congressional districts by these two variables of race and education produces what we have previously called the four quadrants of Congress: districts with high levels of racial diversity, and high levels of white education (what we call “hi-hi” districts); districts with high levels of racial diversity and low levels of white education (hi-lo districts); districts with low levels of diversity and high levels of white education (lo-hi districts); and districts with low levels of diversity and low levels of white education (lo-lo districts).
Democrats, of course, win the districts with “high levels of racial diversity” and /or white education. Two typical “high diversity” districts are Michigan 13, represented by John Conyers, and Illinois 1, represented by Bobby Rush. But note well the demographics: Michigan 13 is 56.5% black and 37.6% white; Illinois 1 is 51.3% black and 40.6% white. Now ask yourself: are these districts really characterized by higher “diversity” than, say, districts that are 50% or 60% white and 40% black?
Of course not. What they are is more black, not more “diverse.”
