Diversity

Who is Included under the Term Diversity?

Most organizations, including schools, universities, and corporations, now recognize and attend to issues of difference through recruitment and retention and professional development, as well as through other activities meant to enhance the climate of a diverse community. Until quite recently, most organizations viewed diversity as a rather narrow set of differences, usually limited to race and ethnicity. Outreach efforts and internal programs (promotion, staff development, etc.) generally focused on groups labeled by the federal government as underrepresented, that is, women, African Americans, Latinos/as, Native Americans, and in some cases, Asian Americans.

Although the federal legal definition of under-represented is still limited to race/ethnicity, gender, [Page 295]and more recently, physical and mental disabilities, since the 1980s the term diversity has expanded, at least in some arenas, to either explicitly or informally include a broad spectrum of demographic, experiential, attitudinal, and philosophical differences. The focus of efforts to address diversity has been to create more hospitable and accepting organizations through the development of awareness and understanding of differences, and the promotion of inclusiveness and learning of all within the organization. This focus is especially true in education in general and in curriculum in particular.

Curriculum and the Conundrum of Diversity

Although there is little argument with the fact that diversity exists and has been a reality within the United States since its very beginning, approaches to diversity have varied greatly. Consequently, how to think—and what to do—about diversity has always been a contentious matter. In fact, because the question of power is central to matters of diversity, it can be said that all the great debates and struggles in curriculum in the past century and a half in the United States have centered on matters of diversity in one way or another. In the United States, the motto E Pluribus Unum, or out of many, one, has been interpreted in numerous and often contradictory ways. Although this ideal is based on the belief that the nation must be simultaneously supportive of pluralism and dedicated to unity, how to balance these sometimes conflicting values has been a hotly contested issue throughout U.S. history.

From the idea that people of all backgrounds should form a melting pot, to battles over whether English should be the official language of the nation, the history of the United States is replete with examples of vastly different approaches to what some have seen as the problem and others as the promise of diversity. For some, E Pluribus Unum has meant the complete assimilation of newcomers to the nation, particularly through what has been called Anglo conformity—that is, the wholesale adoption of the language, culture, traditions, behaviors, and ideals of the nation's dominant group, including dropping one's native language, culture, and allegiance to other nations. For others, E Pluribus Unum has meant a more gradual adaptation to the new country, or what has been called the melting pot, where some cultural manifestations (usually music, food, and other tangible expressions of culture) may become part of the common culture. For others still, it has meant the even more gradual incorporation of newcomers into the nation, with immigrants and their offspring encouraged to maintain their native language and ethnic ties while they are learning English and adapting to the culture of the host nation. This approach has been called cultural pluralism. The differences among these three approaches for dealing with diversity are sometimes quite stark and at other times nuanced.

...