I could not attend last week’s class, but from the articles and previous posts it seems there was plenty to talk about. Though I am not sure what was and was not discussed, I definitely have some thoughts concerning a number of the ideas that appear to have been brought up.

Alex A. and some other people in their posts discussed how it can be “uncomfortable to confront diversity,” often because it forces people to deal with other people that are different than themselves or other issues that they do not understand or know how to explore. I agree with some of the previous posts and readings explaining that helping people discuss diversity (whatever kind) can be beneficial to that group of people as a whole and to the individuals within that group. And while making it comfortable may be “nice,” I do not necessarily think it’s the most effective way to grow and learn. For the most effective change and growth to come out of a conversation about diversity, people need to take risks and push themselves outside of their comfort zones. People need to not be afraid of making mistakes or saying something “wrong.” If a person takes that risk but is simultaneously open to learn or change their ideas, then others can offer their own diverse opinions. Maybe this will lead to a more productive group of people (as discussed in many people’s posts). However, I think it also creates a society in which people value each other’s differences and, therefore, no measurable objective standard (such as productivity) is necessary to justify the importance of diversity.

Another topic that many people have mentioned is the reduction of one’s diversity to one or a couple of (often physical) traits. I especially like how krosania discussed this topic in the end of her post. At Haverford, I have definitely had experiences where I feel like specific aspects of diversity are given greater importance over others, especially while working on some committees. This frustrated me exactly for the reason krosania suggests – assuming that one aspect of a person completely shapes that person’s identity and makes them completely “different” seems to miss the point. I’m not saying that people do not value their differences that those differences do not help form one’s identity. Physical surface differences (e.g. race, religion, etc.) are important in creating diversity, because people do often use stereotypes and make surface judgments. However, I think it is also (and maybe more important) to help each other learn to analyze how these surface differences have actually helped shaped one’s identity. I guess this leads me to value diversity of experience, which is much harder to gauge by just a few convenient labels.

This leads me to another idea brought up by Dan and others before him about ethnic cleansing. Unfortunately, it appears to be the same thing as before – the reduction of one’s diversity to one trait. Unlike before, where we sometimes over-value this oversimplified diversity and promote it based on these crude judgments, here we see examples where the reduction of one’s diversity promotes the elimination of those “different” people. In this attempt to create a “homogenous society,” people appear mislead by focusing on one surface trait and then forming a judgment on that person by solely considering that one trait. By eliminating this trait, a less diverse society will be created. However, the resulting group of people will be by no means homogenous. It will then be only a matter of time until some other trait is termed undesirable, different, and necessary to be purged from the collective society.

I’d like to finish this post with an excerpt that I found particularly interesting from the last reading (Jennifer Delton’s Why Diversity for Diversity's Sake Won't Work). This passage specifically concerns the relationship of choice and race. I’m not sure this area was discussed on Tuesday and would be interested to hear what others think.