Toward a Deeper Discussion about Diversity

In his Public Discourse essay “Defining Diversity,” Michael Bradley sheds much-needed light on one of the most celebrated values of our time. He defines “diversity” as “a description of a state of affairs denoting a variety that is in itself morally neutral.”

Despite its inherently neutral status, diversity has many champions—in the academy, in business, even in government—who routinely sing its praises. Bradley offers one such example from Rev. John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame, who called diversity a “moral and intellectual necessity” and claimed that “a fully diverse community . . . is a richer community for learning, discussion, and inquiry.” Though Bradley assigns a “qualified” value to diversity, he argues that unqualified support for diversity is misplaced. Contrary to what we might infer from statements like Rev. Jenkins’s, diversity, Bradley says, is “neither a virtue, nor a basic good, nor even a generally positive descriptor.” As Bradley puts it:

“diversity” as a  descriptor of any community is devoid of positive meaning unless and until one carefully clarifies what is diverse, and why being diverse in that respect promotes the community’s holistic good.

With Bradley’s argument as my foundation, I want to deepen the analysis of diversity, to further guide our thinking and discussions about this subject. In particular, I will consider the complexity of diversity, potential fallacies in our thinking about diversity, and some unintended consequences of our emphasis on the subject.

Read here