Moved from the main page:
- In the political arena, diversity is a code word for forcing people to tolerate or approve people and practices they find repugnant. Diversity laws or rules forbid any criticism of certain protected groups of people; violations are labeled hate speech.
- "Diversity laws" don't exist.
- In the West, there are no laws "forbidding any criticsm of certain protected groups".
- This is scary language. Maybe we should find some links for these people to look at. Their hatred and anger is evident.
- "In the West, there are no laws "forbidding any criticsm of certain protected groups"." This is untrue. There is controversy over how far hate speech laws goes in curtailing the free speech rights of individuals as one cen be fined or even jailed for saying things that might be construed as "hate."
Removing: In the political arena, diversity is a code word for forcing people to tolerate or approve people and practices they find repugnant. Many US universities have speech codes that forbid certain criticism of protected groups of people; violations are labeled hate speech. Thus diversity masquerades as pluralism, which is the presence in one population of a wide variety of cultures, opinions, ethnic groups, et cetera.
As AxelBolt says, the facts are incorrect and the presentation is too partisan. Diversity is not solely defined or used as defined above. US universities do not forbid criticisms of "protected groups," only the manner in which certain criticisms can be expressed. -- April
Conversely, just about all institutions have some heavily enforced rules on the restriction of what they deem 'hate speech'. What constitutes hate speech is undefined, and it remains ambigous. With this in mind, any criticism has the possibility to be called hate speech and if it is (correctly or incorrectly) the governing authority will see that it has a duty to investigate, given to how serious the allegations are. This will (and does) lead to self-censorship, even when the criticism would be completely valid. There does not need to be a law banning any criticism for the law to do that. text adder: adding text
"These critics claim that pluralism is a more accurate term for the presence of variation, and that, under the banner of "diversity," groups actually forbid criticism of groups that are, in essence, privileged by their minority status."
- Isn't diversity actually a purely descriptive term which says that there a given society consists of more than one group? What is treated under the label of diversity here has more to do with value judgements of this situation and should, in my opinion, rather go under respect for diversity or perhaps multiculturalism.
- Moreover, I find this whole section very partisan, representing mainly an anti-diversity POV. --Robin.rueth 07:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the language 'privileged by their minority status' be removed?
Porsche and colby r just love birds............sike
How exactly are white males a "non-minority group"? If 51-52% of the population are women, then men (or any proper subset of that category) technically can't be a non-minority, at least in the mathematical sense of these words. --184.108.40.206 03:29, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A: Men are a "non-minority group" because they are members of the dominant or privileged gender group. I agree that a better term is dominant group than "non-minority." For one the current literature in social justice uses "dominant group" more frequently and widely. (Maybe a page could explain this subtle difference.) I found the tone in the question very aggressive, but it seemed that it may have been implying that males aren't a "minority" or "dominant" group (race is irrelevant in the discussion of gender dominant groups; on a small-picture level...I know Race Matters). Such an assertion is reflected of an individuals inability or refusal to recognize their privilege, for whatever the reason -guilt, anger, ignorance, etc, and has no place here. To address the race comment because it's ignored too much...the same comparison made. Like people of male gender, people of white race -like myself- have privilege simply because they are white. If some needs to come to terms with that they should read 'Race Matters' by Cornel West, not debate a reality backed up by the dominant literature in social sciences, and particularly in social justice.
What has no place here is you telling people that they need to read books like "Race Matters" by notorious authors like Cornel West. You have no right to criticize another's point of view because they disagree with your opinion on "white guilt." Your ideas about race priveleges, racial irrelevance, and your opinion of "dominant literature" are just that, ideas and opinions and should not be treated as fact. There is tremendous evidence against white privelege and I encourage you to read the works of J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen who have degrees related to the subject at hand as opposed to Cornel West who was an admirer of the Black Panther Party, received a degree in Near Eastern languages and literature, and wrote a dissertation praising marxist thought. His bias as clear and his credentials have no academic bearing on the subject; his personal opinions have no more penis bearing than anyone else's here.Sonnavnorge
A taste of Cornel West's opinion from "Race Matters": "In white America, cultural conservatism takes the form of a chronic racism, sexism, and homophobia. ... for white America, this means primarily scapegoating black people, women, gay men, and lesbians." (Cornel West (Race Matters -- 1993, pg. 27)Sonnavnorge
Every culture in their own land have had "priviledge". Why shouldn't white people in the nations they have build have "priviledge". What the fuck does "priviledge" even mean?
- These arguments need to be elaborated upon in the article. FYI, quoting a book doesn't prove an argument. Cornel West is not infallible. Keep in mind, the pot is calling the kettle white. So:
- Explain why "minority" does not refer to the mathmatically fewer group.
- Explain what a minority is not. Is it any dominant group? Or is it a combination of all dominant groups, i.e., those who are Anglo-Saxon, male, mainstream Protestant, heterosexual, middle-to-upper-class, physically and mentally able, etc.? If the former, is a gay white male not a minority? If the latter, who are these people?
I don't know if there's an end to all this. These politically-charged abstract Latinate terms can mean whatever you want them to. That's how you "export democracy." Mikepjones 07:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I added a paragraph on diversity in the business world, where "diversity" is handled differently from the way it is handled in university or public-sector environments. I'm not advocating it as right or wrong. In companies where I've worked, this is how those programs have been presented. user:RjLesch
I added to the paragraph on diversity in a business context by providing a summary of recent findings on diversity in academic research in businesses Arne.de.Vet
On a less divisive note, there is at least one that links here, but intend to refer to the computer science principle of "diversity" (of system architectures, etc) to prevent massive failures- can anyone think of where that link could be redirected to in that entry (Fault-tolerance, or some kind of cross-reference, or something? (Sorry, I'm new) - FZ
A paragraph about the understanding of diversity in techniques should be added. See in german wikipedia.de "Diversität (Technik)". May be someone can translate the german article (sorry i am not native english speaker, so it will be better that someone other translates).
That TI section seems a bit offtopic. Maybe cut it into its own article and link it to this one? It also sounds like it was written by a disgruntled employee.
- it at least needs some dates in it. For instance, is this an ongoing practice? an ongoing lawsuit? is it pretty old? --Amoore 02:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I added a little to the business section.
I agree that it doesn't appear to be NPOV and certainly does sound like it was written by a disgruntled employee. I have heard of similar stories at other companies. Perhaps it should be reworked as a "Criticisms of Corporate Diversity programs" section, and include the anecdote from TI and others, making sure to emphasize that they are "alleged", unless more solid evidence of the practice is available. --Asmolar 14:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
the TI incident is a very (sadly) common and morally/ethically questionable practice which is only becoming more common as the global economy strengthens... but it doesnt belong in this discussion
i suggest moving it to a page concerning Job Outsourcing, Business Ethics, Globalization, Union Busting, Firings, Layoffs, Age Descrimination in the workplace, social security or similar pages
here's a link to a similar (perhaps the) story about Indians taking American jobs: from USA Today
220.127.116.11 19:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)anony.
p.s. could someone please clean up after my untidy post
http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2004-04-06-replace_x.htm 18.104.22.168 19:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I also think the TI section doesn't belong here. I agree with Asmolar and Amoore that it sounds like it was written by a disgruntled employee.22.214.171.124 01:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand a "sentence"
In the book The Nature of Economies author Jane Jacobs the notion of economic diversity in the growth and development of economies.
Can someone please tell me how this is a sentence? --SilverBulletx3 00:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
"I would not be a slave." (Lincoln)
Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States, was a tall, strong, robust wrestler would have made a mighty fine slave. He announced that he would not be a slave. His image is on Mount Rushmore. Superslum 06:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
"Diversity" is a recent thing which became important after 1950. "Diversity" has generated yowls of "reverse discrimination" by men such as Rush Limbaugh and Ward Connerly. "Diversity" is being employed by rich landowners to change perceptions of colored people in the United States, totally. The simultaneous creation of "blacks" (where there were none prior to 1960) is a part of the scheme. The simultaneous creation of "whites" (where there were none prior to 1960) is also a part of the scheme. Superslum 06:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Rush Limbaugh has raked in more than twenty million dollars in compensation by complaining that he was born with the wrong skin color. Certain people adore him. They believe that "blacks are pampered" and that "whites" are unfortunate people who were born with "the wrong skin color." Even the Chinese Army could not have made a slave out of Rush Limbaugh. Superslum 06:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
In the Economics Section
I'd just like to point out, that the "economics Section" where the cited author concludes that diversity in business is good do to an economy being less dependent on "imported manufactured goods" is extremely subjective. The value of a diverse economy is in the protection it affords in the event that one sector of the economy fails. It has nothing to do with "less reliant on Imported Manufactured Goods" as the United States economy is extremely diverse.. yet relies HEAVILY on imported goods. These sort of blanket, and obviously incorrect conclusions lead me to believe that the author of the citation was incorrect on their interpretation of the book. Do I have proof that the author did not reach the conclusion? No I've not read the book. I can only strongly suggest that it be looked into. There are 2 choices: The wiki author misunderstood the reading... or the author of the book is a strong advocate of "economic diversity" to prove some grand political/social point(and clearly incorrect in her conclusion and assumption of the main value of economic diversity) I laughed out loud when I read that section.
OK... after re-reading it. Not only is it clearly POV of the reader (and wrong), it is poorly written. (poor sentence structure, and flow) At least move it far down the article so folks like me don't laugh after the second paragraph
here is one reference to her http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs
Jane Jacobs is not an economist, nor a sociologist, nor an archeologist, nor a suck dick business owner. She is an author and THEORIST. How on earth her name could be cited when discussing DIVERSITY in ECONOMICS, is quite puzzling. Jane's theories are unproven, unscientific, un-substantiated... She has no higher educational qualifications, no work history qualifications, no highly regarded books on Economics.. only "URBAN PLANNING" (and theories, to remind you).
At least change the economics section to Urban planning or something. It is a disservice to the entire concept of economics to cite a freelance writer who penned 4-5 books as some sort of "Diversity in Economics" mastermind.
Diversity the ship
An old old wooden ship used during the civil war era
- Someone keeps trying to add a link to 'an old ship by the name of Diversity'. The article they are attempting to link to does not exist. If you have any references to verify the existence, please provide them and/or create the article for the USS or CSS (it is unclear from these minimal inclusions which side the ship belonged to) Diversity yourself.
I'm doing some work on diversity and on a light note if i was from outer space i would call my ship diversity!and put diversity on it and send it out there some were ' this is just me. but this world would take it's finger from up it's ass and get on with life . we are not here that long .just my out look on it .stewart uk. 11:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Stewart1011
Removed from the disambig page:
- "Diversity is an old, old wooden ship that was used during the Civil War era", a quip by Will Ferrell's character in Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy
Removed again: "Diversity (Anchorman) - An old, old wooden ship used in the Civil War era." This doesn't belong here. It can be interpreted as a racist rebuke to social diversity. Or it might simply be a cynical remark. The Urban Dictionary lists this definition alongside unkind views of affirmative action. Besides, who cares what Will Ferrel was paid to say? This simply doesn't belong here.
- Removed again. Rklawton (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- And again. Rklawton (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)