I am utterly sick of hearing and reading about what some people are calling “diversity.”  The only conclusion that one can draw from the practices and policies being promoted under the banner of diversity is that its promoters either don’t comprehend the dictionary definition of the word or are using a word with a vague but largely favorable connotation to promote a practice that is deleterious, dangerous, and discriminatory.

It is most likely the latter, and it is also most likely intentional.

Let’s look at the practices.  One type of “diversity” insists that an organization or institution must contain a variety of individuals, preferably certain minimum proportions of particular groups.  The honest name for such a requirement is a “quota system,” but, since most people sensibly believe that no organization or institution should be forced to have, say, a certain quota of blacks or women or blue-eyed blondes, those with an agenda for a particular group have chosen to use the term “diversity” to impose what is, in effect, a quota.

It does no good to admit students to a university on the basis of some ethnic quota if these students are ill-prepared for college work.  Such a practice dooms those who are ill-equipped to failure and, at the same time, causes those who belong to the same group and are admitted on merit to appear to be there only because the quota system allowed them to attend.

Just as deleterious is the situation in which a company is forced to choose the lesser of two potential employees because he (or, even more likely, she) fits the profile that will provide greater “diversity.”  The better choice is sent away, the company must hammer a square peg (the lesser choice) into a round hole, and productivity suffers.  On a larger scale, personnel departments around the country must file countless reports to the Equal Employment Opportunity bureaucrats to prove that their companies are meeting quota . . . er . . . “fulfilling their obligations to provide diversity.”  The paperwork is staggering, the benefits nil.

Another practice is that of accommodating certain groups of people solely because these people represent “diversity.”  An example is a recent flap about nursing home workers who speak English within earshot of residents who may not understand English.  Since nursing home regulations state something about communicating with residents in language they can understand, speaking English within earshot of a resident who understands only Spanish is considered a violation.  It is said to show insensitivity to the “diversity” of the residents.  But the requirement that workers not speak English is an accommodation beyond reason.  It is patronizing to a fault.

We already offer too much accommodation to Spanish-speaking Americans, and this is why many are not fluent in English, even after years in this country.  The language of the country, except in enclaves of immigrants, is English, and it is still a necessity for higher education and for an entrée to most jobs.  It is no accident that students whose first language is Spanish have, in general, more difficulty in college than do students who have some other foreign language as their first language.  We do not accommodate others the way we accommodate Spanish speakers.  If we did, every road sign, the instructions to jurors, tax forms, and a host of other things that are now presented in Spanish and English would have to be rendered in 25 or 30 languages.

But that won’t happen.  The advocates of “diversity” are not interested in very small minorities; they are interested only in very large minorities – i.e. those with political clout.  Indeed, that they have no interest in advancing the cause of, say, Albanian-Americans, is proof that they are not interested at all in diversity but rather in entitlement for groups that already have some power.  They want these groups to have more power, and the only way to guarantee that is to give them an artificial edge, rather like letting the second-string quarterback play by hitting the first-string quarterback in the shins with an iron bar.

We used to speak of America as a melting pot.  I don’t hear that metaphor used much anymore.  In a melting pot, everything that’s thrown in modifies and blends with what is already there.  So we have discarded the melting pot metaphor because it no longer applies.  What we have now is some kind of concoction in which all the diverse ingredients retain their own identity and where it is unacceptable to make them conform in any way.  It isn’t even a stew, for in a stew the flavors blend and enhance each other.  The advocates of what they choose to call diversity are not creating a blend or a melting pot.  They are creating a kind of divisiveness that has succeeded only in pitting diverse people against each other, with the inevitable fallout of resentment and hostility.

Worse, those who promote the diversity of stereotypical groups essentially deny the most important diversity of all – the diversity of all people, one individual from the other.