Diversity

In thinking about the discussion from Tuesday night, I keep coming back to Andrea’s initial question of “Why if it’s so (biologically) advantageous is diversity something that we struggle with so much?” For me the obvious answer is the historical context of diversity in this country. A group of people working together to find a solution to a problem is likely to be more effective (although not necessarily more efficient) if they are able to approach a problem from different perspectives; in other words: if they’re more mentally diverse.

But in our culture “mental diversity” isn’t the type of differences that come to mine when diversity is mentioned. Diversity usually brings to mind differences in race, ethnicity, social economic status, and cultural background. Considering American history and the difficulties that have existed in our melting pot society, along with the ability to identify people by race, economic status, etc. using visual cues (however accurate or inaccurate), it’s not surprising that these are the thoughts associated with diversity. And it’s those thoughts and the historical context of struggles of groups of people that make it difficult to talk about diversity. Given that context, it might explain why we kept turning back to the moral arguments as well.

Argument for Mental Diversity

I think that given the term “mental diversity” it may be a little easier to talk about the type of diversity that makes a company or a classroom more productive. I certainly don’t agree with every thought or opinion in our class, and while sometimes I may feel like some opinions are outside the spectrum of what I consider reasonable, I definitely believe that our class is more productive for have a range of view points about our discussion topics. It wouldn’t be very productive (or interesting) if we all sat around saying “I agree” the whole night. Additionally, I’m finding that I am agreeing with thoughts and opinions that I just wouldn’t have considered had they not been brought up, and I think this also serves as evidence for me that mental diversity equals productivity.

Thinking about mental diversity, I tried to consider how such a term could be applicable for admissions officers of a school or someone hiring for a company. I realized that often what enables people to think differently is in fact their diverse personal history, which does in fact largely arise from experiences related to religion, ethnicity, economic status, etc. I don’t see that as an argument for maintaining diversity as an antonym for these qualities but rather as an argument for maintaining those qualities that enable mental diversity. That is to say that I don’t think that as we promote diversity in more social settings that eventually all qualities are going to blend together and be one. I think instead that it’s important to celebrate what makes us different so that we can integrate those differences into our ways of thinking (like going to Jewish summer camps, which I remember someone mentioning.

I think that college admissions directors (at least at smaller schools like Haverford and Bryn Mawr) are getting pretty good at looking at the different qualities that someone can bring to the table beyond test scores. While the initial ability to communicate at a certain level is necessary for efficient productivity, the diversity is definitely necessary for productivity, also. Hopefully this is something that can become better integrated into the hiring process (especially as some of us are looking for jobs…). And further more I see this as an argument to admit boys with slightly lower scores until the applying demographic shifts for colleges. After all, the admissions criterion/process is different for Haverford and Bryn Mawr and I think it’s the awareness that the schools host students with different perspectives that led to the Bi-Co (although the initial gender difference was pretty obvious) and it makes the Bi-Co a productive organization with greater mental resources.

-Liz