CDZ Diversity, What's Important?

[MacTheKnife]

You are coinfused.....diversity in and of itself or to promote diversity strictly in order to just claim we have diversity is ridiculous in and of itself....serving no purpose or any kind of merit whatsoever.

What you should be saying is that we need intellectual freedom....most especially in academia where p.c. has restricted it now for decades.

And where in my post do I disagree with that?

It is not that you disagree with it...just that you used a poor choice of words to promote Intellectual freedom.

Freedom is not diversity.....intellectual diversity is not intellectual freedom...you can have all kinds of diversity and still not have intellectual freedom.

In fact those so obsessed with diversity now would have no problem stripping you of all your freedoms just to be able to have more and more diversity.

You cannot have liberty without liberty to express thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs. Again intellectual liberty is the root/foundation of all liberty. And unless diversity of thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs is allowed, even encouraged, we have a society so narrow minded, intolerant, and inflexible that liberty cannot exist and all manner of injustice and evil will flourish.

Liberty within society is dependent upon responsibility. That means responsibility for the consequences of pitting oneself against the society.
When the society insists that, before the law and in society women and men are equals, it is no longer a question of diversity to suggest changes to that. Other opinions and outlooks may be heard, but with no expectation of adoption. A culture that, for example, only accounts half the value of a man to a woman can only serve as an example of how not to do things.

Responsibility is important. I don't disagree with that. But a healthy society will put together laws, rules, regulations that accomplish order, decency, and ability to deal with the irresponsible and the aggressors who are harmful to the persons or property of others. But such a healthy society that is based on social contract instead of dictates of a dictator or dictatorial government cannot evolve unless it allows for differences/diversity of thoughts, opinion, ideas, concepts, beliefs.

Instead it will become narrow, fixated, intolerant to the point that the society itself will be unjust and oppressive.

You are talking in very broad terms to the point of obfusication....let us get real here and try to get our heads out of the clouds and ivory towers of intellectualism....you use the phrase 'ability to deal with the irresponsible and aggressors' ....what to you really mean by that in plain language? I am not sure....here is what I hope you mean: law and order ---easy to say and with all the police we have it should not be all that difficult to achieve...and by and large most communities are safe for the majority of citizens but still we have too much crime, too much violence -- particularly in large cities like Chicago, Detroit, and Atlanta etc.etc.

We need to concentrate on our failures...and figure out exactly why we have failed...but such investigations are severely hampered by politics. Then we need to figure out solutions....again we are hampered by poliltics.

Also.....what do you mean by social contract?

 

[MacTheKnife]

And where in my post do I disagree with that?

It is not that you disagree with it...just that you used a poor choice of words to promote Intellectual freedom.

Freedom is not diversity.....intellectual diversity is not intellectual freedom...you can have all kinds of diversity and still not have intellectual freedom.

In fact those so obsessed with diversity now would have no problem stripping you of all your freedoms just to be able to have more and more diversity.

You cannot have liberty without liberty to express thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs. Again intellectual liberty is the root/foundation of all liberty. And unless diversity of thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs is allowed, even encouraged, we have a society so narrow minded, intolerant, and inflexible that liberty cannot exist and all manner of injustice and evil will flourish.

Liberty within society is dependent upon responsibility. That means responsibility for the consequences of pitting oneself against the society.
When the society insists that, before the law and in society women and men are equals, it is no longer a question of diversity to suggest changes to that. Other opinions and outlooks may be heard, but with no expectation of adoption. A culture that, for example, only accounts half the value of a man to a woman can only serve as an example of how not to do things.

Responsibility is important. I don't disagree with that. But a healthy society will put together laws, rules, regulations that accomplish order, decency, and ability to deal with the irresponsible and the aggressors who are harmful to the persons or property of others. But such a healthy society that is based on social contract instead of dictates of a dictator or dictatorial government cannot evolve unless it allows for differences/diversity of thoughts, opinion, ideas, concepts, beliefs.

Instead it will become narrow, fixated, intolerant to the point that the society itself will be unjust and oppressive.

Perhaps, but American society is not based on dictates from other than the people, who included great variations of diversity.

Now you have really opened a can of worms....this diversity we have and which politicians have touted as being so desirable ---causes many problems for our society.

If we had politicians willing to sacrifice their political careers to try and solve some of the problems in our big cities like Chicago they would immediately be attacked for being racist. Politicians understand that all too well and thus they will not touch these problems that are so critical with a 10 ft. pole. Meaning they distance themselves from anything that would hurt their political careers.

 

[Foxfyre]

Explain please?

As a working woman working in many different field for a lot of decades now, I have never felt repressed except in situations in which I was perceived as the 'token woman' who was advanced or got the raise not because I earned and merited it, but because of diversity rules in an organization. And that really sucks. Many minorities in the same situation feel the same way.

Forced diversity always has many more downsides than good points.

Intellectual diversity is critical to a society embracing liberty, generating opportunity, and to advance.

You are coinfused.....diversity in and of itself or to promote diversity strictly in order to just claim we have diversity is ridiculous in and of itself....serving no purpose or any kind of merit whatsoever.

What you should be saying is that we need intellectual freedom....most especially in academia where p.c. has restricted it now for decades.

And where in my post do I disagree with that?

It is not that you disagree with it...just that you used a poor choice of words to promote Intellectual freedom.

Freedom is not diversity.....intellectual diversity is not intellectual freedom...you can have all kinds of diversity and still not have intellectual freedom.

In fact those so obsessed with diversity now would have no problem stripping you of all your freedoms just to be able to have more and more diversity.

You cannot have liberty without liberty to express thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs. Again intellectual liberty is the root/foundation of all liberty. And unless diversity of thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs is allowed, even encouraged, we have a society so narrow minded, intolerant, and inflexible that liberty cannot exist and all manner of injustice and evil will flourish.

Explain please?

As a working woman working in many different field for a lot of decades now, I have never felt repressed except in situations in which I was perceived as the 'token woman' who was advanced or got the raise not because I earned and merited it, but because of diversity rules in an organization. And that really sucks. Many minorities in the same situation feel the same way.

Forced diversity always has many more downsides than good points.

Intellectual diversity is critical to a society embracing liberty, generating opportunity, and to advance.

You are coinfused.....diversity in and of itself or to promote diversity strictly in order to just claim we have diversity is ridiculous in and of itself....serving no purpose or any kind of merit whatsoever.

What you should be saying is that we need intellectual freedom....most especially in academia where p.c. has restricted it now for decades.

And where in my post do I disagree with that?

It is not that you disagree with it...just that you used a poor choice of words to promote Intellectual freedom.

Freedom is not diversity.....intellectual diversity is not intellectual freedom...you can have all kinds of diversity and still not have intellectual freedom.

In fact those so obsessed with diversity now would have no problem stripping you of all your freedoms just to be able to have more and more diversity.

You cannot have liberty without liberty to express thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs. Again intellectual liberty is the root/foundation of all liberty. And unless diversity of thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs is allowed, even encouraged, we have a society so narrow minded, intolerant, and inflexible that liberty cannot exist and all manner of injustice and evil will flourish.

I do not think you understand what most ....especially liberals mean by diversity or what kind of diversity they want....basically their desire is to have more minorities....look at all the universities and their diversity programs-- what are their goals...more blacks enrolled mainly but they also now are interested in muslims...and they heavily discriminate in regards to what nationalities or races they promote for entrance into their prestigious institutions....mainly they discriminate against Asians...Harvard has recently been under fire for that.

I do not think that you understand that I'm not arguing with you about that. Or that I am arguing for a different kind of diversity.

I like to practice what I preach. And insulting liberals or conservatives or anything in between will not facilitate honest and civil exchange of ideas, concepts, principles, beliefs any more than the diversity you are describing will do that.

 

[Foxfyre]

And where in my post do I disagree with that?

It is not that you disagree with it...just that you used a poor choice of words to promote Intellectual freedom.

Freedom is not diversity.....intellectual diversity is not intellectual freedom...you can have all kinds of diversity and still not have intellectual freedom.

In fact those so obsessed with diversity now would have no problem stripping you of all your freedoms just to be able to have more and more diversity.

You cannot have liberty without liberty to express thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs. Again intellectual liberty is the root/foundation of all liberty. And unless diversity of thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs is allowed, even encouraged, we have a society so narrow minded, intolerant, and inflexible that liberty cannot exist and all manner of injustice and evil will flourish.

Liberty within society is dependent upon responsibility. That means responsibility for the consequences of pitting oneself against the society.
When the society insists that, before the law and in society women and men are equals, it is no longer a question of diversity to suggest changes to that. Other opinions and outlooks may be heard, but with no expectation of adoption. A culture that, for example, only accounts half the value of a man to a woman can only serve as an example of how not to do things.

Responsibility is important. I don't disagree with that. But a healthy society will put together laws, rules, regulations that accomplish order, decency, and ability to deal with the irresponsible and the aggressors who are harmful to the persons or property of others. But such a healthy society that is based on social contract instead of dictates of a dictator or dictatorial government cannot evolve unless it allows for differences/diversity of thoughts, opinion, ideas, concepts, beliefs.

Instead it will become narrow, fixated, intolerant to the point that the society itself will be unjust and oppressive.

You are talking in very broad terms to the point of obfusication....let us get real here and try to get our heads out of the clouds and ivory towers of intellectualism....you use the phrase 'ability to deal with the irresponsible and aggressors' ....what to you really mean by that in plain language? I am not sure....here is what I hope you mean: law and order ---easy to say and with all the police we have it should not be all that difficult to achieve...and by and large most communities are safe for the majority of citizens but still we have too much crime, too much violence -- particularly in large cities like Chicago, Detroit, and Atlanta etc.etc.

We need to concentrate on our failures...and figure out exactly why we have failed...but such investigations are severely hampered by politics. Then we need to figure out solutions....again we are hampered by poliltics.

Also.....what do you mean by social contract?

Social contract is agreement between members of a society toward the end of adopting mutual policies, plans, goals that will mutually benefit all. A group of townsfolk getting together to decide to incorporate the community or hire a constable or folks mutually agreeing to set up a volunteer fire department or shop keepers agreeing to fund paving their road/street are examples of social contract.

But if you think I am obfusicating in my arguments so be it, and I will wish you well and wish for you a pleasant evening.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is not that you disagree with it...just that you used a poor choice of words to promote Intellectual freedom.

Freedom is not diversity.....intellectual diversity is not intellectual freedom...you can have all kinds of diversity and still not have intellectual freedom.

In fact those so obsessed with diversity now would have no problem stripping you of all your freedoms just to be able to have more and more diversity.

You cannot have liberty without liberty to express thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs. Again intellectual liberty is the root/foundation of all liberty. And unless diversity of thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs is allowed, even encouraged, we have a society so narrow minded, intolerant, and inflexible that liberty cannot exist and all manner of injustice and evil will flourish.

Liberty within society is dependent upon responsibility. That means responsibility for the consequences of pitting oneself against the society.
When the society insists that, before the law and in society women and men are equals, it is no longer a question of diversity to suggest changes to that. Other opinions and outlooks may be heard, but with no expectation of adoption. A culture that, for example, only accounts half the value of a man to a woman can only serve as an example of how not to do things.

Responsibility is important. I don't disagree with that. But a healthy society will put together laws, rules, regulations that accomplish order, decency, and ability to deal with the irresponsible and the aggressors who are harmful to the persons or property of others. But such a healthy society that is based on social contract instead of dictates of a dictator or dictatorial government cannot evolve unless it allows for differences/diversity of thoughts, opinion, ideas, concepts, beliefs.

Instead it will become narrow, fixated, intolerant to the point that the society itself will be unjust and oppressive.

Perhaps, but American society is not based on dictates from other than the people, who included great variations of diversity.

Now you have really opened a can of worms....this diversity we have and which politicians have touted as being so desirable ---causes many problems for our society.

If we had politicians willing to sacrifice their political careers to try and solve some of the problems in our big cities like Chicago they would immediately be attacked for being racist. Politicians understand that all too well and thus they will not touch these problems that are so critical with a 10 ft. pole. Meaning they distance themselves from anything that would hurt their political careers.

And you are apparently ignoring the argument I am making that honest discussion, debate, and allowing, even inviting, all points of view for how to solve a problem generally results in the best solution for that problem. It is only in a closed minded, narrowly focused, intolerant society that someone ruins his career by addressing or fixing a problem.

 

[blackhawk]

I find it interesting we hear the word diversity thrown around a lot and we are told we need more of it in seemingly every part of the nation except in diversity of thought. You can and should be more diverse we are told in religion, race, gender, income, sexual orientation you name it but you have an idea or view that does not fit in with the group look at how fast you get attacked and trashed.

 

[pismoe]

diversity in race and religion , politics just screws things up , more fighting is all 'diversity' bring plus it brings more politicians to cater and appease to the diversity .

 

[MacTheKnife]

diversity in race and religion , politics just screws things up , more fighting is all 'diversity' bring plus it brings more politicians to cater and appease to the diversity .

diversity in race and religion , politics just screws things up , more fighting is all 'diversity' bring plus it brings more politicians to cater and appease to the diversity .

I think the better term for what you are describing is 'variety'.

Anyhow...I definitely agree that diversity is not something that should be striven for and it is and has been touted for long time now by politicians of the political correct variety of which we have way too many.

The term is being construed on some posts above into something it is not and value placed on it which it does not deserve by some posters who I think are confused.....as in they probably read a little political philosophy and it went to their heads. hehheh As in....a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

 

[MacTheKnife]

I find it interesting we hear the word diversity thrown around a lot and we are told we need more of it in seemingly every part of the nation except in diversity of thought. You can and should be more diverse we are told in religion, race, gender, income, sexual orientation you name it but you have an idea or view that does not fit in with the group look at how fast you get attacked and trashed.

What we need to be talking about is not diversity of thought (which is a very coinfusing term to begin with) but seeking the truth and a willingness to speak the truth.

The Truth is rarely popular that is why you see so many politicians not concerned about it...they pander for the most part to ideas and actions they think are popular and by embracing such try to protect and promote their political careers. In essence most politicians are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Where are the patriots? That is what is severely lacking in our society today...politicians who love themselves more than they love America.

 

[MacTheKnife]

You cannot have liberty without liberty to express thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs. Again intellectual liberty is the root/foundation of all liberty. And unless diversity of thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs is allowed, even encouraged, we have a society so narrow minded, intolerant, and inflexible that liberty cannot exist and all manner of injustice and evil will flourish.

Liberty within society is dependent upon responsibility. That means responsibility for the consequences of pitting oneself against the society.
When the society insists that, before the law and in society women and men are equals, it is no longer a question of diversity to suggest changes to that. Other opinions and outlooks may be heard, but with no expectation of adoption. A culture that, for example, only accounts half the value of a man to a woman can only serve as an example of how not to do things.

Responsibility is important. I don't disagree with that. But a healthy society will put together laws, rules, regulations that accomplish order, decency, and ability to deal with the irresponsible and the aggressors who are harmful to the persons or property of others. But such a healthy society that is based on social contract instead of dictates of a dictator or dictatorial government cannot evolve unless it allows for differences/diversity of thoughts, opinion, ideas, concepts, beliefs.

Instead it will become narrow, fixated, intolerant to the point that the society itself will be unjust and oppressive.

Perhaps, but American society is not based on dictates from other than the people, who included great variations of diversity.

Now you have really opened a can of worms....this diversity we have and which politicians have touted as being so desirable ---causes many problems for our society.

If we had politicians willing to sacrifice their political careers to try and solve some of the problems in our big cities like Chicago they would immediately be attacked for being racist. Politicians understand that all too well and thus they will not touch these problems that are so critical with a 10 ft. pole. Meaning they distance themselves from anything that would hurt their political careers.

And you are apparently ignoring the argument I am making that honest discussion, debate, and allowing, even inviting, all points of view for how to solve a problem generally results in the best solution for that problem. It is only in a closed minded, narrowly focused, intolerant society that someone ruins his career by addressing or fixing a problem.

I support honest discussion,debate and a consideration of all points of view and am all for solving problems.

You must remember though to solve any problem you must first identify it. You seem to be beating around the bush so to speak.

You seem not to have noticed that our society now dominated by political correctness is very intolerant.

Let us stick with Chicago for a moment and maybe we can get to the crux of our differences if we have any.

What is the problem in Chicago?
After you define the problem in Chicago what would you suggest needs to be done to fix it.

 

[MacTheKnife]

You are coinfused.....diversity in and of itself or to promote diversity strictly in order to just claim we have diversity is ridiculous in and of itself....serving no purpose or any kind of merit whatsoever.

What you should be saying is that we need intellectual freedom....most especially in academia where p.c. has restricted it now for decades.

And where in my post do I disagree with that?

It is not that you disagree with it...just that you used a poor choice of words to promote Intellectual freedom.

Freedom is not diversity.....intellectual diversity is not intellectual freedom...you can have all kinds of diversity and still not have intellectual freedom.

In fact those so obsessed with diversity now would have no problem stripping you of all your freedoms just to be able to have more and more diversity.

You cannot have liberty without liberty to express thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs. Again intellectual liberty is the root/foundation of all liberty. And unless diversity of thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs is allowed, even encouraged, we have a society so narrow minded, intolerant, and inflexible that liberty cannot exist and all manner of injustice and evil will flourish.

You are coinfused.....diversity in and of itself or to promote diversity strictly in order to just claim we have diversity is ridiculous in and of itself....serving no purpose or any kind of merit whatsoever.

What you should be saying is that we need intellectual freedom....most especially in academia where p.c. has restricted it now for decades.

And where in my post do I disagree with that?

It is not that you disagree with it...just that you used a poor choice of words to promote Intellectual freedom.

Freedom is not diversity.....intellectual diversity is not intellectual freedom...you can have all kinds of diversity and still not have intellectual freedom.

In fact those so obsessed with diversity now would have no problem stripping you of all your freedoms just to be able to have more and more diversity.

You cannot have liberty without liberty to express thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs. Again intellectual liberty is the root/foundation of all liberty. And unless diversity of thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs is allowed, even encouraged, we have a society so narrow minded, intolerant, and inflexible that liberty cannot exist and all manner of injustice and evil will flourish.

I do not think you understand what most ....especially liberals mean by diversity or what kind of diversity they want....basically their desire is to have more minorities....look at all the universities and their diversity programs-- what are their goals...more blacks enrolled mainly but they also now are interested in muslims...and they heavily discriminate in regards to what nationalities or races they promote for entrance into their prestigious institutions....mainly they discriminate against Asians...Harvard has recently been under fire for that.

I do not think that you understand that I'm not arguing with you about that. Or that I am arguing for a different kind of diversity.

I like to practice what I preach. And insulting liberals or conservatives or anything in between will not facilitate honest and civil exchange of ideas, concepts, principles, beliefs any more than the diversity you are describing will do that.

Whatever....but here is something that everyone concerned with diversity of any sort should consider.

'In the name of “diversity,” many leading academic and cultural institutions are working to silence dissent and stifle intellectual life. This powerful book exposes the real impact of “multiculturalism” on the institution most closely identified with the “politically correct” decline of higher education—Stanford University. Authored by two Stanford graduates, this book is a compelling, if sometimes depressing, insider’s tour of a world of speech codes, “dumbed-down” admissions standards and curricula, campus witch hunts, and anti-Western zealotry that masquerades as legitimate scholarly inquiry.

Sacks and Thiel use numerous primary sources—the Stanford Daily, class readings, official university publications—to reveal a pattern of politicized classes, housing, budget priorities, and more. They trace the connections between such disparate trends as political correctness, the gender wars, Generation X nihilism, and “culture wars,” showing how these have played a role in shaping “multiculturalism” at institutions like Stanford.

Sacks and Thiel convincingly show that “multiculturalism” is not about learning more; it is actually about learning less. They end their comprehensive study by detailing the changes necessary to reverse the tragic disintegration of American universities and restore true academic excellence.'

The Diversity Myth: Multiculturalism and Political Intolerance on Campus | David O. Sacks, Peter A. Thiel, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese

 

[there4eyeM]

One of the problems for "tolerant" societies is bumping up against intolerant ones. What do you do when an ideology or religion is predicated upon being the only one, or even insists on tenets that violate yours, such as woman's equality?

 

[Picaro]

I see nothing positive about 'embracing' failed cultures; most of that 'Diversity' rubbish is just whining losers sniveling about getting by passed by progress and far better cultural practices. Only total morons think we need to treat Aztec or Congo or Pakistani 'cultures' as something to 'admire' and encourage, just to name three; 'Diversity' is just a dog whistle word for black and brown racists and their infantile jealousies and bigotry.

Yes......diversity, multi-culturalism, integration and also such bullshite has been crammed down the throats of generations of innocent kids who being kids absorbed the nonsense and then in turn promoted it themselves.

How did it all get started in the first place? Who initially promoted it. Who gained by it? Why is it still the 'law' of the land when it has all obviously failed?

They're not even promoting real 'culture', just stupid caricatures of some propagandist's wish list of fantasies; it's commie tactic, like calling homosexuals 'gay', gimmicks like that. They complain about 'stereotyping' and claim to be insulted by 'blackface' or something, then turn around and do the same thing themselves. Watch the Grammies, or tabloid shows like TMZ, and see which 'black cultures' they're glorifying as 'important, scumbag street vermin 'rappers' and 'hip hop low lifes; compare that complete shithead sewer garbage to the great gospel, classical, and jazz contributions of the past from black musicians, which get almost no airplay or even mention anywhere any more. Who even knows of Winton Marsalis's classical music, for instance? I get blank stares from black kids even bringing up his name.

 

[there4eyeM]

It is nice to be kind, understanding and inclusive. That doesn't work with Nazis, Khmer Rouge, Maoists, real racists, etc. A discussion with such may be possible, "inclusion" is not.

 

[harmonica]

some schools have a ''diversity'' club
as Miketx stated, this FORCES people to accept/etc
you can't change humans from being human

 

[ding]

Diversity seems to be a topic of conversation in many areas, including politics, business, school, ect. So, as a general rule, what would you say is the most important type of diversity? By that I mean, what is the ultimate goal of having a "diverse" group, whether it be a political party, a business, school, working group, work force, governing body, or citizenry at large? Is the goal to have a diverse looking group? Is it to have diversity of background? Diversity of ideas? Diversity of perspective? What is the ultimate goal?

Before anyone gets bogged down in the concept that it depends on the overarching goal of the group (and that is true in many cases), let's just say that's not the point. I am wondering what people think on the topic in general.

Is it better to have people who look different, but think much the same; or is it better to have people who think differently, and come from a variety of backgrounds, regardless of what they look like?

Note: This is intended to be a non-political/non-partisan discussion. Please, if you are unable to leave your partisanship at the door, move on.

The most powerful use of diversity is when I am in a meeting and I ask the person who was quiet through out the meeting what they think about it. Too often discussions are dominated by a select few and good observations, comments and ideas are left off the table. The power of diversity is engaging the quiet voice in the room. We have totally screwed up what diversity means by making it about quotas.

Including the person who doesn’t feel like they are part of the team and making them feel like they are part of the team is what diversity is all about.

 

[JoeB131]

To me diversity is a bad word. It means you have to accept the unacceptable.

Depends, doesn't it.

I have to tolerate bible thumping idiots. I even have to sit there and smile politely when they start talking about Jesus....

So you can sit and smile politely when some dude introduces another dude as his husband. No skin off your backside.

 

[JoeB131]

some schools have a ''diversity'' club
as Miketx stated, this FORCES people to accept/etc
you can't change humans from being human

No, but you can let them know when their behavior is unacceptable.

Racism, misogyny, homophobia are unacceptable.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Diversity seems to be a topic of conversation in many areas, including politics, business, school, ect. So, as a general rule, what would you say is the most important type of diversity? By that I mean, what is the ultimate goal of having a "diverse" group, whether it be a political party, a business, school, working group, work force, governing body, or citizenry at large? Is the goal to have a diverse looking group? Is it to have diversity of background? Diversity of ideas? Diversity of perspective? What is the ultimate goal?

Before anyone gets bogged down in the concept that it depends on the overarching goal of the group (and that is true in many cases), let's just say that's not the point. I am wondering what people think on the topic in general.

Is it better to have people who look different, but think much the same; or is it better to have people who think differently, and come from a variety of backgrounds, regardless of what they look like?

Note: This is intended to be a non-political/non-partisan discussion. Please, if you are unable to leave your partisanship at the door, move on.

The most powerful use of diversity is when I am in a meeting and I ask the person who was quiet through out the meeting what they think about it. Too often discussions are dominated by a select few and good observations, comments and ideas are left off the table. The power of diversity is engaging the quiet voice in the room. We have totally screwed up what diversity means by making it about quotas.

Including the person who doesn’t feel like they are part of the team and making them feel like they are part of the team is what diversity is all about.

First of all you need to define what you think diversity is.

Not saying you are wrong....I tend to agree with you actually. But there is a lot of coinfusion about the term for sure....to the point that I think it should be avoided.

The way it has been used by leftwingers is of course to promote minorities and multi-culturalism.

 

[MacTheKnife]

some schools have a ''diversity'' club
as Miketx stated, this FORCES people to accept/etc
you can't change humans from being human

No, but you can let them know when their behavior is unacceptable.

Racism, misogyny, homophobia are unacceptable.

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaa Many would find you un-acceptable boyo. So who do you think should have the power to decide for the rest of us what is acceptable for society and what is not?

You seem incredibly naive.