Diversity

Defining Diversity

The first is a common dictionary definition, which is not used in the social justice, social equity, and multicultural fields. Any standard dictionary will use words such as “difference” and “unlikeness.” These are elements used in the social science sense of the word. However, “diversity” has become a more technical, if conflicted, term that dictionaries do not help define.

In regard to professional practice in the diversity and inclusion field, an emphasis on accepting, respecting, and valuing differences among people by recognizing that no one group is intrinsically superior to another underlies the current usage of the term. Diversity can include human qualities that are different from one's own and from those groups to which one belongs. The intent is sometimes to include members of groups who have been marginalized in some way. Cultural diversity is the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the human capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations.

In terms of organizational culture, implementation of diversity concepts can create an organizational and managerial process for developing an environment that maximizes the potential of all employees by valuing difference. Diversity training is often prescribed as a partial solution to intergroup differences within an organization. A diversity-competent organization would then be able to respond to the needs of many different [Page 720]groups in ways that are appropriate for these groups in sociocultural terms.

A different meaning of diversity is used in the social sciences, especially around fair housing and segregation, as a measurement of levels of integration by race and ethnicity. The theory is that if all decisions were made randomly, there would be 100 percent diversity. Diversity is a condition; integration is an outcome.

History

Some diversity programs arose in the United States before the 1990s, becoming more popular with the partial dismantling of affirmative action programs as the result of several successful federal court challenges against them and a more conservative electorate in a few states, who expressed their opposition to affirmative action at the ballot box. While some viewed affirmative action as coercive, many people accepted diversity programs because they were voluntary. The impetus for diversity programs was prompted by the reality that many organizations did not reflect the population of the United States, and were overwhelmingly white and male. An institutional lack of diversity was a hallmark of the United States from its earliest history.

A current impetus to adjust to and prepare for the nation's new demographics is rapidly becoming much more urgent with the growth of Latino and Asian American/Pacific Islander populations. Growing acceptance of gays and lesbians, and the presence of more women in the workforce also create a need to learn to adjust to new realities. An advantage to organizations in approaching disparity problems through diversity programs is that they can often resolve issues without legal investigations or making admissions of wrongdoing. Diversity is often distinguished from civil rights.

...