Diversity is not our strength

Whether we encounter the phrase through the media, the classroom or from celebrities and politicians, we now frequently hear that “diversity is our strength.”

West Chester University President Chris Fiorentino is quite fond of the phrase. Last month, he stated in an email to students: “At West Chester University, our greatest strength lies in our diversity.”

Because we are constantly bombarded by these words, we often accept them without a thought. But if we pause and reflect on this phrase, it begins to fall apart under scrutiny.

First of all, we might ask, what kind of diversity are we talking about?

Do we mean diversity of worldview, ideology and opinion? Surely, we do not. That type of diversity doesn’t seem at all important to our university, nor does it seem important to the vast majority of universities across the country.

Thomas Sowell once remarked: “The next time some academic tells you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department.”

Sowell has a great point.

Studies have found that in sociology and anthropology departments across the country, there are on average about thirty Democrats for every one Republican.

The numbers are not much better if we look at the humanities and social sciences in general, where Democrats outnumber Republicans by at least 10 to one, and sometimes as much as twenty to one. And, taking the university as a whole, the numbers average out to about six Democrats for every one Republican.

These statistics are not only striking—they should also be concerning to any person who cares about the dangers inherent in phenomena such as group-think and confirmation-bias. However, universities do not seem to care that they are severely lacking in ideological diversity.

It is clearly not diversity of worldview that is peddled by our cultural and educational institutions. Rather, what is worshipped is diversity within the now-sacred triad of race, gender and sexuality. This is evidenced by the growing importance placed on group quotas and preferential hiring policies across the country.

In the drive towards equal representation of groups, or “equity,” hiring based on the merit of candidates is being replaced by hiring based on candidates’ skin color and genitalia, to put the matter frankly.

To be fair, it may be objected that diversity of opinion and experience is in fact what universities are aiming at.

This objection necessarily rests on the assumption that diversity of race, gender and sexuality lead to diversity of thought. But this assumption is misguided, as evidenced by the fact that there is, in general, more diversity within a group of people than there is between groups of people.

Now, to return to our discussion, if it is diversity of the aforementioned sacred triad that is commonly preached, the question remains: is this diversity “our strength” or, as President Fiorentino put it, “our greatest strength?”

To address the question directly, the answer is that it’s neither. Diversity never has been our strength, and it certainly has never been our greatest strength. And this remains true today.

One of the hallmarks of our country is that we are a nation of immigrants. That is one of many things that makes the United States unique. But it is not our strength.

Our strength is that people from all over the world emigrate to become Americans and to pursue the American Dream. Our strength lies in our founding ideals and in the American vision, which both literally and figuratively move people from across the world.

Furthermore, what makes any of our institutions strong, and what makes our country strong in general, is our shared identity and our shared purpose.

What makes us strong as a people is the same thing that makes any group or any team strong—unity and trust. Without unity and trust, not only would we have no strength as a country, we would not even be able to have a peaceful society.

Unity and trust are so foundational to our society that they are, in a sense, invisible to us, and so we usually take them for granted. But, make no mistake about it, these constitute the bedrock of any society in which people want to live.

Unity and trust enable stability, economic prosperity and peaceful transitions of political power—each of which, we tend to forget, is a remarkable feat in human history.

That all being said, let me be clear that I am not discounting the value of diversity. Differences within a group or a team certainly can be helpful. However, diversity only adds value provided there is an underlying bedrock of unity. That is my point. The greatest strength in anything strong necessarily comes from its foundation.

We recently had the pleasure of watching the Eagles win the Super Bowl. When the players were interviewed after the game and gave their reflections on the season, what was it that they said propelled them to victory? Every player I heard credited their unity and faith in each other as key components to the victory.

To be sure, their diverse abilities and talents as individuals were a source of strength, but that diversity would amount to nothing without their common bond.

Although the analogy to a sports team may be crude, that does not take away from the truth which it reveals. What it shows us is that diversity can be good.

Often, it is praiseworthy, but only when there is also a shared vision and shared values. If we reject or neglect our roots, if we are no longer united by a common culture and a national identity, diversity will only divide us into tribes, and the dangers inherent to tribalism will follow.

Our differences do not unite us, but we can be united despite our differences.

Perhaps instead of mindlessly worshipping diversity and elevating it to the level of a sacred value, we should reignite the foundational motto of the United States—“E Pluribus Unum”—Out of Many, One.

Sam Dugan is a fourth-year student majoring in economics and philosophy. ✉ SD829860@wcupa.edu.