Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Free Thinker

Diversity Vs. Multiculturalism

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Today and yesterday I had to attend the Freshmen Welcome for the University of Minnesota (TC). While I was there, I noticed the incredible and chronic lack of self esteem and independence among my classmates. People were absolutely terrified at the thought of "being alone", as vague a concept that is.

To compensate, the University took us through countless lectures and presentations stressing the importance of diversity - essentially giving us permission to be individuals. I thought a lot about the concept , and have come to the following conclusion . Although the pervasive racial connotation of diversity is abhorrent, I do like the idea of being exposed to different ideas and learning as a result. Not because different races bring different kinds of knowledge, but different people bring different bits of knowledge. (Remember, Objective and Absolute truth do exist, but only as result of the continuous expansion of one's knowledge!!)

Multiculturalism, on the other hand, is through and through a vile idea with no redeeming value. It implicitly an attack on individualism, and replaces it with the sham idea of "individuality".

Please post your thoughts.

Edited by Free Thinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you mean?

What I mean is that what is meant by "diversity" in your university is likely to be just as racist, multiculturalist, and evil as what is meant by "multiculturalism." You have to ask yourself what they mean by "diversity," and from my experience, it means "containing non-western ideas," which of course means "containing irrational ideas which must be given the same respect and time as rational ones."

Oh, and also it means they will give scholarships and acceptance to people on the basis of their race, which will trump any merit-based assesment. So I hope you like paying full price.

:pirate:

Edited by Free Thinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I mean is that what is meant by "diversity" in your university is likely to be just as racist, multiculturalist, and evil as what is meant by "multiculturalism." You have to ask yourself what they mean by "diversity," and from my experience, it means "containing non-western ideas," which of course means "containing irrational ideas which must be given the same respect and time as rational ones."

Oh, and also it means they will give scholarships and acceptance to people on the basis of their race, which will trump any merit-based assesment. So I hope you like paying full price.

I understand and agree with what you are saying, but let me elaborate my position. I seek, as you pointed out, to display the "diversity movement" in perhaps a overly generous position. I liken my analysis to the environmental movement; in which although the fundamentals of the philosophy are wrong, there still exists genuine pro-man people within.

(BTY, I was drafted in the Martin Luther King Program - at prima facie a thoroughly racist organization)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand and agree with what you are saying, but let me elaborate my position. I seek, as you pointed out, to display the "diversity movement" in perhaps a overly generous position. I liken my analysis to the environmental movement; in which although the fundamentals of the philosophy are wrong, there still exists genuine pro-man people within.

If I interpret this literally, then I have to ask why you seek to be so generous. As to the environmental movement, check my signature: I have never seen such a thouroughly evil philosophy. The goal in seeking out these pro-man people within is to expose how utterly evil their philosophy is so that they drop it like a hot potato.

Which gives me an idea: perhaps you seek to be generous to the people, not to the movement. I would say that is entirely proper to be generous to individuals, if (and only if) you judge that they deserve it, but you're better off NOT forgiving the movement itself.

Oh, well, good luck and good premises. :pirate:

Edited by Free Thinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To compensate, the University took us through countless lectures and presentations stressing the importance of diversity - essentially giving us permission to  be individuals. I thought a lot about the concept , and have come to the following conclusion . Although the pervasive racial connotation of diversity is abhorrent, I do like the idea of being exposed to different ideas and learning as a result. Not because different races bring different kinds of knowledge, but different people bring different bits of knowledge.

[bold added for emphasis.]

I would like to make explicit what I see as implicit in what you have said. The idea of "diversity" -- as used by "moderate" leftists -- is a package deal. There is a good element in it, to the extent that it includes the idea of individuals being free to pursue their own lifestyle without forcing it on others. Of course, there are other elements of this package: We should accept anything, no matter how outrageous, without judgment ("He isn't bad, just different.") And, the way to achieve diversity is to force institutions to open their doors to individuals they wouldn't otherwise accept. (Apparently the idea of diversity only applies one way, the leftist way.)

In this sense, "diversity" is as much a package-deal as is the term "tolerance." In the political sense, tolerance (that is, not using the power of the state to enforce cultural or religious or other standards) is a good thing. But "tolerance"is a term also used to label the idea of nonjudgment of individuals. So, in discussions with liberals I say I am tolerant and not tolerant, and then explain the two different meanings.

Multiculturalism, on the other hand, is through and through a vile idea with no redeeming value. It implicitly an attack on individualism, and replaces it with the sham idea of "individuality".

I agree that multiculturalism, as I have heard the term used, is devoid of rationally redeeming value. It almost always names the idea of a diversity of groups, not merely individuals. It is egalitarian collectivism.

Today and yesterday I had to attend the Freshmen Welcome for the University of Minnesota (TC). While I was there, I noticed the incredible and chronic lack of self esteem and independence among my classmates. People were absolutely terrified at the thought of "being alone", as vague  a concept that is.

How did you reach this conclusion in only two days of observation? What was the evidence?

Edited by Free Thinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to make explicit what I see as implicit in what you have said. The idea of "diversity" -- as used by "moderate" leftists -- is a package deal. There is a good element in it, to the extent that it includes the idea of individuals being free to pursue their own lifestyle without forcing it on others. Of course, there are other elements of this package: We should accept anything, no matter how outrageous, without judgment ("He isn't bad, just different.") And, the way to achieve diversity is to force institutions to open their doors to individuals they wouldn't otherwise accept. (Apparently the idea of diversity only applies one way, the leftist way.)

In this sense, "diversity" is as much a package-deal as is the term "tolerance." In the political sense, tolerance (that is, not using the power of the state to enforce cultural or religious or other standards) is a good thing. But "tolerance"is a term also used to label the idea of nonjudgment of individuals. So, in discussions with liberals I say I am tolerant and not tolerant, and then explain the two different meanings.

I agree.

I agree that multiculturalism, as I have heard the term used, is devoid of rationally redeeming value. It almost always names the idea of a diversity of groups, not merely individuals. It is egalitarian collectivism.

I agree.

How did you reach this conclusion in only two days of observation? What was the evidence?

Firstly, we had numerous group discussions talking about ourselves, which enabled me to see what sorts of ideas others hold. They would say things like: "My worst fear to be alone", and "Be accepting of everyone, judging others is really bad", etc.

Secondly, just walking around with people and hearing the types of conversations they were having. For instance, they would be talking about all the keggers they planned on going to, or discussing where they could smoke - weed, etc. - in a purely escapist fashion.

Thirdly, simply reading thier body language sufficed. They were always looking around at others, wording their answers to how much others would like them, that sort of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only redeeming value of diversity is that learning the viewpoints of people who are wrong can assist you in properly debunking them.
Well, there is one other: learning the viewpoints of people who are right, when you are wrong (or viewpointless), so that you can correct your error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DavidOdden: Good point.

Felipe: Not necessarily, but it is often the case. There are differences between the races, considered as wholes. Blacks typically behave differently than whites, but I agree that if your goal is to increase diversity, it's dumb to do it on the grounds of race. I've known plenty of black people who act every bit as white as I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will admit that there are statistical trends in people of a certain race and/or culture, however I would never use these statistics as a basis of judgement in order to achieve "diversity" in an academic sense or in citizenship.

On the other hand, in police work, where lives are at risk, officers need to use every tool at their disposal to prevent crime. And, if, for example, blacks and/or hispanics statistically are not very likely to be driving a BMW in neighborhood X, then the police should use the statistics to suspect a black or spic of theft if he's driving a BMW in neighborhood X.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but I think both of you would agree that achieving a diversity of viewpoints is not necessarily, nor very likely, achieved by attaining a diversity in culture and/or race.
Well, I think that diversity of race is irrelevant and utterly sans merit. However, it does bug me that the faces in my classes are almost entirely white, because it means there is some kind of stupid correlation thing going on where non-whites are, for some reason, avoiding doing the rational thing (known as "actin' white" in the 'hood).

Diversity of culture in the "classical" sense (that is, having access to a broad range of man-made facts across cultures) has a merit, namely that it presents you with facts that may well be rational values to you. This is particularly true in aesthetic realms such as music and visual art, and especially snacks. I'd go so far as to say that a good load of cultural diversity is essential to an "ultimate" theory of concept formation (though obviously, people can form concepts with no knowledge at all of other cultures), since it makes it really obvious how conceptualization is volitional, and depends on focus. But you're right that this distills down to virtually no effect in reality, since in fact there isn't much diversity of culture in the class, and presence does not automatically translate into impact.

In a non-classical sense, I strongly encourage a particular kind of cultural diversity -- I'd like to see something other than left-wing liberal Kantian nihilists in class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can understand and agree that diversity in a classical sense is of value.  How do you propose this value be achieved, and by whom?
Basically, I guess it's primarily up to the teachers, when it's relevant to what they teach. Most of what I do has to do with language, and it's just a fact that a lot of people are fundamentally afraid of languages other than English. I understand "not interested" as in "I've got too much else to do", I'm talking about "that's just too wierd, I don't want to think about it". Anyway, it's my job to make it interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will admit that there are statistical trends in people of a certain race and/or culture, however I would never use these statistics as a basis of judgement in order to achieve "diversity" in an academic sense or in citizenship.

Nor would I...well, I wouldn't do it anyway, and I suspect that you wouldn't either. But I know what point you're trying to make, and I couldn't agree more. A couple of years ago, I actually had a letter to Texas A&M's newspaper (The Battalion) published which points out how stupid it is to equate "racial diversity" with "cultural diversity."

On the other hand, in police work, where lives are at risk, officers need to use every tool at their disposal to prevent crime.  And, if, for example, blacks and/or hispanics statistically are not very likely to be driving a BMW in neighborhood X, then the police should use the statistics to suspect a black or spic of theft if he's driving a BMW in neighborhood X.

I'm all for racial profiling, but I think this takes it too far. You can't just go around pulling over every black man you see driving a BMW. If you have reports that a black man stole someone's BMW then, by all means, pull over any black men you see driving a BMW. But pulling over a black man just because he's driving a traditionally white man's car seems wrong to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to add, that the problem with the bigot, or the racist, is that they look at perceptual level attributes ( i.e. big nose, black skin, perceived Mexican heritage), assign people with those attributes into groups, and then treat the individual, as the group (i.e. you big nosed are all alike), with different behavior toward favored groups, as to non-favored groups.

The diversity movement groups people by their perceived attributes, and treats people as favored, or non-favored groups, just like the bigot. Only, the diversity movement has to employ techniques, or group think classes, to constantly convince themselves, or dupe themselves, into thinking they are really compassionate, and not bigots.

This is different than conceptualizing Man as a rational being, affording individual rights, and then dealing with people in context, by your rational mind, to their rational mind. And it's certainly different than diversifying your portfolio, the subjects you teach, or the meals you have throughout the week.

I wanted to add the above because I didn't read in the conversation above, that Diversity IS the old stigmatized Multi-culturalism. They are the same perceptual thinking, political movement.

A diversity of opinions, feelings, and experiences, in a college entrance, group therapy session, is not the same as the Progressive movement of Diversity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just wanted to add, that the problem with the bigot, or the racist, is that they look at perceptual level attributes ( i.e. big nose, black skin, perceived Mexican heritage), assign people with those attributes into groups, and then treat the individual, as the group (i.e. you big nosed are all alike), with different behavior toward favored groups, as to non-favored groups.

I thought you were talking about racial profiling for a second. This is why I am skeptical of the practice mentioned in Felipe's post. Unless we have specific reason to believe that there has been a BMW stolen by a black man, I don't see why statistics are any reason to justify pulling over black men in BMW's, under other circumstances.

Felipe: judging by your name and your picture, I'm guessing that you're Hispanic. I imagine you'd be more than slightly miffed if the LAPD pulled you over because most Hispanics in neighborhood X belonged to a gang that robbed the local 7-11 the night before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually am a spic and I wouldn't mind getting pulled over. If I lived in nieghborhood X, one pull-over and verification would be enough for them to not pull me over any longer. I don't get offended at all if, for example, I would be set aside for extra checking at the airport because I can also look middle-eastern. I know who I am and that's all that matters. Racial profiling, which is based on statistics, is a perfectly fine tool for law enforcement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I imagine you'd be more than slightly miffed if the LAPD pulled you over because most Hispanics in neighborhood X belonged to a gang that robbed the local 7-11 the night before.

In addition to his response, I'm sure he would make it his first priority to move OUT of neighborhood X. How many people in such neighborhoods are rational enough to claim the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moose, you're dropping context. You're confusing the context of law enforcement profiling, the definition of the word Diversity, and the non-concept, Diversity, which is political Multi-culturalism.

In fact, I think the Progressives who hi-jacked the word Diversity, planned such confusion, so they can keep the term subjective, and fill the void with their whims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't really been talking about diversity, in my last few posts. I've been talking about racial profiling, which I think is just fine as long as it isn't taken too far.

Pulling over a black man just because you don't see many black men driving BMWs is the same kind of practice as multiculturalism. It is taking the perceived attributes of a group (blacks not driving BMWs) and applying them to an individual, who may well not fit the stereotype. Multiculturalism is the practice of taking the perceived attributes of a group and then applying them to all individuals of said group, to come to the conclusion that increasing racial diversity will also increase cultural diversity. In other words, hiring a black man because you assume he will act black, when really he's just like every other white man you've ever met. How is there a difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pulling over a black man just because you don't see many black men driving BMWs is the same kind of practice as multiculturalism.
This is not to suggest, by any means, that all police are pure in their actions -- but how often are black men pulled over only for driving a BMW? I'm not asking, how often do black men claim that is the only reason, but how often is it the only reason. 5 black teens in a BMW cruising aimlessly late at night is suspicious. What you shouldn't forget is what they are to be suspected of is selling drugs. So the injustice of racial profiling arises not from the use of race as a way of stopping crime, but in what the crime is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...