Difficulties in defining diversity
In 2017, Hua Hsu of The New Yorker cited ‘the year of diversity fatigue’, noting that diversity had become a ‘worn and misapplied term.’ Hsu described diversity’s arrival into America’s legal scene in the 1978 decision of University California v Blake—a case that struck down the applicability of quotas in university admission but upheld affirmative action—as being responsible for its ‘messy origins’ that ensured the term’s ‘vague and ahistorical’ application. That same year, Keelfa Sanneh wrote that diversity was something ‘everyone can love, not least because no one can define it.’ Perhaps the most controversial figure to chime in on the topic was journalist Lionel Shriver, who responded to Penguin Random House’s diversity pledge critically. Concerned about the pledge’s effect on publishing criteria, Shriver wrote that ‘literary excellence will be secondary to ticking all those ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual preference and crap-education boxes.’ In response, Kenan Malik noted in The Guardian that Shriver misunderstood the term and observed that diversity was frequently confused with notions of equality.
The merits of these arguments aside, each represent the difficulties in establishing a clear definition for diversity. Nonetheless, in a typical law student definition, I sought to do so. The Macquarie Dictionary defines diversity as ‘the state of being diverse.’ It suggests ‘difference’ and ‘variation’ as synonymous with diversity. If linguistics alone are anything to go by, ‘div’ as a prefix means to separate, while ‘verse’ indicates the range of this separation. This leaves us with a term describing multiple differences on a varying scale.
Personally, I find it ironic that a term used to connote inclusion is not limited by an exhaustive definition. Such an observation calls into question the practical realities of diversity—that is, how do we demonstrate diversity has been achieved, in the sense that diversity is limitless and therefore never ending? To this end, there’s diversity of thought; diversity of opinion; diversity of age, socio-economic, gender, sexual orientation, politics, experience, occupation—and so on. Given the difficulties of establishing representation in each and every one of these categories, Malik made the point that diversity in today’s institutional sense means ‘being representative in a few chosen categories, and only those categories.’ Similarly, Janet Stovall makes the persuasive argument that diversity should not exist alone. Rather, it should be paired with inclusion. Diversity, she argues, is a numbers game, capable of being mandated; inclusion is cultivated and focused on impact.
These comments, while helpful in determining the scope of diversity, do little to aid in defining the term. Interestingly, almost each author agrees that diversity—in its pure form—aims to expose individuals to new people and ideas, so as to create environments that more accurately reflect one’s community and encourage unity. But, as the Macquarie Dictionary points out, diversity is not an endpoint or final destination to aspire to. True diversity reflects a ‘state of being diverse’. It is a way of being, as opposed to something that can be ticked off a list. ‘Being diverse’ means approaching all areas of one’s life with an open and inclusive mind, a willingness to learn and a withholding of judgement. Perhaps we should aim to embody diversity, rather than achieve diversity.
Article written by Sonia Stone
This article appeared in the Torts Illustrated Diversity (2019) Publication