In Response to a Preposterous Piece of Journalism...

As Daniel Henninger wrote “The Death of Diversity”—the grandiosely entitled article that was recently published in the Wall Street Journal—was he sticking out his tongue and with a thumb in each ear, waggling his fingers? That’s certainly the impression I got as I read his overconfident, sneering yet misguided interpretation of Harvard Professor Robert Putnam’s study on the effects of ethnic diversity on communities.

In short, Mr. Henninger concludes that the withdrawal, distrust and decreased community involvement found in the study’s diverse communities provide sufficient evidence for his key assertions, which are: 1) that diversity is, at best, something to be tolerated, and at worst, something to be avoided; and, 2) that all diversity initiatives are unhelpful, or worse, damaging, and therefore, “not worth saving.”

That’s quite a drastic leap. In my mind, it’s somewhat akin to saying that because of the inevitable clash in perspectives resulting from a fundamental cultural difference between men and women (as evidenced by skyrocketing divorce rates), we should abolish the institution of marriage. Preposterous? I agree. But so are Mr. Henninger’s conclusions regarding diversity.

For sure, Mr. Henninger’s conclusions are not the only conclusions to be arrived at. In fact, what we could, and perhaps should, take away from Professor Putnam’s study is this simple and well-known fact: diversity is hard. Sure, we already knew that. But rather than conclude that diversity must be a bad thing and wonder how we can curtail it, why aren’t we asking why it’s so hard, and then, discussing what might make diversity less difficult?

From my perspective, it is a general lack of understanding of culture and competency in intercultural skills among Americans that makes diversity such an increasingly difficult aspect of American life. And I’m not just talking about a lack of awareness of other cultures; I’m talking about a lack of awareness of our own collective culture. Ask most Americans to describe American culture and nine times out of ten you’ll get either a blank stare or a dismissive, but inaccurate “We don’t really have a culture, we’re a cultural melting pot” response.

For the record, I don’t disagree with all of Mr Henninger’s ideas. While, I do not label myself a “diversity trainer,” I am an educator on culture and intercultural skills; and although the two approaches are often confused, there’s often a big difference between the two. At best, some (and I stress some)“Diversity” programs, as Mr. Henninger points out, offer little to no value as they simply regurgitate tired lessons aimed at attitude adjustments, encouraging participants to love their neighbors and do unto others…you know the mantra. At their worst, these programs do significant damage by recreating within a business environment, the problematic social divisions that inhibit dialogue and collaborative interaction out in the real world. Often these types of programs leave their intended targets—white men—feeling alienated and attacked.

Intercultural intelligence/skills-building workshops, on the other hand, facilitate the development of self-awareness first. Participants explore the many social dimensions, going well beyond race, ethnicity and gender, shaping their own values, perspectives, and habits. As it applies to all workshop participants, it engages everyone without creating division. This inclusive approach provides useful tools that enable participants to better communicate and resolve conflict across gender, race, socioeconomic, regional, and other cultural differences. The value is clear: people learn about themselves—their own unique cultural lenses; men learn how to communicate better with women; women with men; young people with members of an older generation; and so on. I know it’s valuable because I’ve seen the loudest opponents of diversity programs quickly become the biggest advocates for these skills-building opportunities.

As an educator on culture, I do agree with Mr. Henninger that some level of assimilation by immigrants is important for unity and a cohesive national identity. But, I take issue with other statements made by Mr. Henninger. For example:

• His second sentence, referring to diversity initiatives, reads: “One of the biggest problems with diversity is that it won’t let you alone.” And yet, he later acknowledges that 21^st century American society is and will continue to be comprised of “unavoidable ethnic multitudes.”
• He mistakenly assumes that all diversity programs fall into the traps mentioned above, when certainly they do not.
• He concludes that “People in ethnically diverse settings don’t want to have much of anything to do with each other.” There is a big difference between not wanting to have anything to do with one another, and not knowing how to navigate the cultural differences that may exist between groups. In addition, this blanket statement disregards the existence of individuals who do indeed prefer, actively seek out, and thrive in their enjoyment of the opportunities, characteristics and resources that may be unique to diverse neighborhoods.

Finally, in conclusion to his scathing attack on diversity, Mr. Henninger presents an ambiguous “model for the way forward in a 21^st century American society…:the middle class.” Whether he’s suggesting that African doctors, East Indian scientists and Asian engineers should all aspire to assimilate into the culture of middle class Americans, I’m not exactly clear, but at least this “younger black, brown…[and] polka-dot writer” has heeded his call and set forth her answer for an effective solution to the challenge that is diversity.

Straddling a Barbed-Wire Fence

We say this country is free. That everyone is free to do what they want to do. Free to become who they want to become. Free to determine their own identity.

And perhaps it's true if you're willing to firmly plant your feet on either side of the black-white divide.

But for those of us who don't fall so neatly in place, for those of us whose identities lie within the shades of gray our society tends to ignore, such freedoms remain a distant reality, a future dream. Preserving and celebrating our unique identities is an ongoing struggle--one that may win battles (e.g. the option to identify as multiracial on the census 2000, the celebrity of an outspoken mixed person--Tiger Woods, Mariah Carey, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Vin Diesel), but which has yet to win the war (e.g. broader acceptance and validation of the identities that prove the world is not just black or white).

I will keep straddling the barbed-wire fence dividing black and white--it is an arbitrary divider, informing each side on how to speak, act, dress, even dream in a way that is different from the other. My insistence on doing so may cause me pain, it will surely win me enemies, but I will do it for me, for my children, and for their children to come.

I strongly believe that the hard-earned freedom to be who we are, to shape and celebrate our whole identities is truly worth fighting for.