With the political climate the way it is and current events unfolding the way they are, questions about the value of diversity seem to be percolating through conversation on a regular basis.
While many wonder what inherent value lies in a diverse range of perspectives, some settle their questioning with a simple answer — diversity is important because diverse people have so much to offer. This is a lovely thought, but implicit in that statement are complexities that do more harm than good.
This mindset disregards the inherent humanness of individuals in diverse groups. Diversity should, first and foremost, be about the belief that no one person or sect of people holds more value than another on a human level.
Austin Maas | Argonaut
By limiting the value of diversity to the accumulative, arbitrarily measured contributions of a certain demographic, this mindset undermines the belief that people should be respected despite their net worth. How is worth or value even measured in this scenario?
If economic or monetary contributions are the determining factor, then what hierarchical structures are being supported by that measurement? This suggests that a diverse individual’s importance is variable and gauged according to their ability to support societal power structures, which, because of privilege, often work against them.
A minority is not valuable because they take an undesirable job or pay taxes like everyone else. Their importance is far more complex.
If their money isn’t the most important thing, then surely the cultural education they provide must be worth something, right? Wrong.
By assuming a diverse individual’s worth lies in their ability to teach others about themselves and their cultural background, this statement supports the otherness that diversity seeks to deconstruct.
It is not a minority’s responsibility to teach others about themselves. Doing so can be helpful and intriguing. However, a person within the dominant narrative — white, straight, cis-gendered people — should seek to educate themselves, rather than inconveniencing a less privileged identity with difficult, deeply personal questions.
Diverse groups are necessary for the education and cultivation of a diverse society, but it is not their sole responsibility to speak up and educate, especially when considering the ways in which they are already oppressed.
One wouldn’t expect the victim of a stabbing to stop and explain what it’s like to be the victim of a stabbing with the knife still in their chest. The same applies when considering diverse and oppressed groups. A refugee suffering the effects of cultural xenophobia, or an LGBTQA individual impacted by political homophobia or even a person with a physical disability whose access to resources is limited, should not be responsible for explaining their struggles and needs before being considered a valuable person.
No matter how you measure it, diversity for the sake of diverse contributions is not working in the favor of disenfranchised groups at all. Approaching diversity with the belief that all human perspectives are unique and have intrinsic value is the only way to work toward societal progress in terms of diversity.
People from different backgrounds are important, not because there is something to be gained from them because all individuals have inherent worth.
Austin Maas can be reached at [email protected] or on Twitter @austindmaas
mike4ty4
"However, a person within the dominant narrative — white, straight, cis-gendered people — should seek to educate themselves, rather than inconveniencing a less privileged identity with difficult, deeply personal questions." But from what sources? And if there is no outside check on that education how do you prevent from becoming miseducated with bias and then doing harm by THAT?
mike4ty4
And yeah maybe minorities should not be FORCED or DEMANDED to educate but it seems they cannot be proscribed as a source, either, for logic says that's the way to the echo chamber and blind-leading-the-blind.