The argument for diversity has become a political whitewash for the problem
of educating the urban poor and ghetto neighborhoods. Because the
statistics for inner city schools were getting so bad relative to their
suburban counterparts in the 70's, it was thought that bussing kids to the
"better" schools to the outlying wealthier districts would solve this
statistical black-eye. The line of reasoning followed that the wealthier
schools were financing a superior system of education... I think now,
everyone sees how flawed that argument was. The banner of equal opportunity
was raised once again and the defense of diversity became a code word for
'our organization or institution is doing its share to help these
disadvantaged individuals.' Then with cases of reverse discrimination et
al. the diversity issue becomes that much more vital, legally we want to
demonstrate that we ARE abiding by EO laws as well as NOT employing reverse
discrimination... thus, a legal and political conundrum has been subverted
into a social mantra for egalitarianism.
The real problem instead of being dealt with is conveniently side-stepped
and mired in a tangle of hair-splitting legalese and philosophically empty
dogma.
End of Part I
I've a lot more to say, but it can wait.
--RIck