The Catholic Thing
Diversity Print E-mail
By James V. Schall, S.J.   
Tuesday, 09 February 2010

Among governments and on campuses today in the Western world, (but revealingly, not anywhere else), “diversity” has suddenly become a prevalent, if not defining, word. We do not seek truth or unity or agreement or the common good. We seek something called “diversity.” Once the categories of “diversity” are set down, they are not to be criticized. Diversity critics show “prejudice,” the worst of sins.

In a basic sense, of course, every existing thing in its particularity is different from everything else. We do not have to “seek” diversity. We are simply diverse. I am not you. You are not Abraham Lincoln. I am not a rabbit. You are not an oak tree. A major purpose of our having a mind is to point these things out. This thing is not that.

But if everything is simply “diverse,” we are back in nominalism. We have nothing in common. It is evident, however, that common traits exist. We notice that horses are not dogs. And neither a horse nor a dog is a pear. Horses, dogs, and pears are living things. Stones are not.

We find that we cannot talk about “diversity” without talking about unity. Everyone really understands this principle without too much reflection. Beings with life, sensory powers, and intelligence, furthermore, seem to have an ordered unity of different levels of being within them.

But from whence comes this sudden elevation of “diversity” to a central political and educational goal? Is it all that neutral? Diversity is often related to quotas, though the relation is tricky. Governments get into the business of insisting on proportions as a sign of the diversity that they insist on fostering. They think they are doing something called “justice.”

We try to divide mankind up into categories. But we find so many. We try black, white, Asian, Indian, Spanish-speaking, heaven knows what. Much attention used to be paid to people of different parentage. What happens when an Asian marries a Spanish-speaker? What are the children? How far back do we carry this? To grandparents, great-grandparents? I heard of a bishop whose ethnic background includes being 1/64 Indian of some tribe or other. He gets annual tribal money on that basis, presumably from the casinos. The talk about “reparations” for political disorders of a century or more ago presumes a corporate guilt thesis alongside of an “I-am-a-product-of-my-past” determinism.

But “diversity” is, when spelled out, rather more sinister than the thesis that every job or profession must have some identifiable percentage of members of various subdivisions of race, sex, language, degree of handicap, and whatever else one wants to put in or leave out.

Can we then admit that in fact certain people of the same “diversity” are more enterprising than others, more intelligent, or more willing to work? Does this latter kind of “diversity” need to be factored into our calculations? As happens in union situations, is it against the custom or rules to work too hard, to lay too many bricks? And if someone does work hard, is he being “exploited?” Or is he being unfair to those who cannot or will not work as well as he does? Do they both deserve equal pay whatever they do?

Diversity theory has its moral overtones. Once we define homosexual “marriage” as a “normal diversity,” it follows that all benefits and adoption rights follow from the legal recognition. The right of a child to a proper mother and father, of course, does not follow. It is an unaccepted “diversity.”

Europe is a pioneer in forbidding any real discussion of the religious causes of terrorism coming from Islam. This prohibition is just another application of diversity. Diversity theory is never neutral. It is an agenda that seeks to allow and disallow what the positive laws establish. It is law unrelated to reason.

So can “diversity” change human nature? Can it make right wrong and wrong right on the grounds that they are merely diverse ways of doing something? Once we set up “diversity” criteria as our operative principle of rule, we must see to it that our institutions and words mirror the established “diversity” criteria.

If the criterion of a “diversity” university is that it has a certain quota of its faculty and student body according to the defined percentages of members of the society as politically calculated, does this criterion end up serving or undermining the purpose of a university to seek the truth?

The real enemy of diversity is, I think, truth. Diversity is, in fact, a much easier thing to establish. You just have to know how to count, though the effort to categorize just who belongs to the preferred categories is bewildering. Indeed, it makes the whole enterprise artificial. In the end, diversity proselytism almost always becomes something artificial, which is to say, something unnatural.

James V. Schall, S.J., a professor at Georgetown University, is one of the most prolific Catholic writers in America
. His most recent book is
The Mind That Is Catholic

(c) 2010 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info at thecatholicthing dot org

The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (9)Add Comment
written by Brian, February 10, 2010
Game, set, and match.
Thank you Father Schall
University or Zoo?
written by Willie, February 10, 2010
This piece is a best. How often these days do we hear a university praised for its diversity. Well diversity is nice, I suppose, but to equate it with the purpose of a good university is nonsense. Diversity, it seems, has become a euphemism for political correctness and a convenient way of denying absolutes. Should one look for a university that generates ideas in finding truth-the meaning of a university- or one that believes that anything and everything is true? For the latter go to the zoo!
The child has no voice.
written by Ars Artium, February 10, 2010
Human mothers and fathers are being taught that donation of ova and sperm is a charitable act, i.e., "giving someone a child". The child - who will never know either his mother or father or both - has no voice in the matter. His heritage has been both given away and stolen.
I wonder...
written by Kathleen O'Hagan, February 10, 2010
I wonder, Father Schall, how you are treated at Georgetown concerning your truth seeking, politically incorrect beliefs? Are your classes boycotted by students? Do the various gender, sexuality and race groups on campus villify you for what you believe? My father suffered for his beliefs at the law school where he taught for more than forty years. I always admired his courage. You and he are my heroes.
"The right of a child ...
written by Ars Artium, February 10, 2010
After writing my comment, I realized that I had singled out one sentence in an article about "diversity". Still, that a child's right to "a proper mother and father" is an "unacceptable 'diversity' " strikes, I believe, at the core of what it means to be human.
The Irony of Diversity
written by Belloc, February 10, 2010
The irony of diversity, at least at the institutional level, is that sufficiently diverse things are no different from one another. To take an example, The University of Notre Dame, in seeking to be diverse like Harvard, approaches identity with it, and with all other sufficiently diverse universities. True diversity requires the retention of identity at some level. If our Catholic schools are really Catholic, we willl have diversity. But this is not really the diversity they want.
written by Joseph, February 10, 2010
The Roman historian Tacitus lamented his capital city had become "the common sink into which everything infamous and abominable flows from all corners of the world." Spengler, Sorokin, Toynbee and many others picked up on the theme of the "sensate culture" that eventually destroys civilizations. Erich Fromm wrote of the "anonymous authorities" who rule in the name of political correctness in the guise of pluralism, multiculturalism and diversity. Orwell's "Slave Society" has finally arrived.
written by Martin, February 10, 2010
And there are a host of other terms ("multiculturalism," "inclusion," "racism," "sexism," etc.) that were coined outside of Sacred Tradition but that are used within Catholic institutions to subvert Catholic identity with a postmodernist agenda as our Bishops remain typically clueless. Could the Magisterium please, finally, systematically show us how to "baptize" and "purify" these terms? Or can orthodox Catholic intellectuals do it for them? We need more than an essay, Fr. Schall!
A Myth
written by Henry, February 10, 2010
This "laying of too many Bricks" stuff may be applied to some unions or industries, but in my 56 years as a BAC member Local#1 Mich, I must say, it's all an extensive myth, Father.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


Other Articles By This Author