The previous post in this series is here.
As has been pointed out previously in this series, “diversity” is not in any sense politically neutral. It always strongly favors the Left, and people who are big fans of “diversity” are almost always strongly committed to the Left in other ways.
Just to analyze one instance in a recent faculty discussion of diversity: a professor of social ethics was disappointed that his students, having finished his course, had not come to the conclusion that the Iraq war is unjust. Let’s unpack this.
First, he seems to believe that his comment is related to the discussion of diversity. How would that be, exactly? What relevance does the justice or injustice of a particular bit of foreign policy have to diversity at his university? It’s clear that in his mind, diversity and general leftist thought are very much related, and since the discussion is about diversity, the floor is open to general leftist discussion. He thinks he is at ideological home with his fellow travelers. He has done this before, almost certainly, and been well-received. This seems more and more common at too many Christian colleges and universities (especially the universities).
Second, he seems to believe that no other position on the matter of the Iraq war can possibly be held by a rational person, in possession of the facts, with a decent heart and Godly intent. So his disappointment makes sense, in his very constricted world-view.
Third, he seems completely unaware that he has just hurled a deadly insult at the parents who pay his salary, because it is likely that his students reflect some of their parents’ perspectives on such matters, and he thinks those perspectives are morally and rationally indefensible. To be blunt, he sees his job as taking parents’ money to teach their children to think that their parents are fools, or worse.
Yet there he is, in the middle of a discussion of diversity, knowing that heads around the table will nod sagely as he fires from the hip, without really having a target, other than those benighted souls of the world who do not subscribe wholesale to leftist thought. Plenty of heads nodded, as if the comment were perfectly appropriate. He is a perfect example of what has been happening in Christian higher education, as we bring in more and more faculty who are so thoroughly indoctrinated by the Left in their graduate programs that they see themselves as being on a mission from God to disabuse undergraduates of their foolish traditional misconceptions.
Translation: these kids’ parents have been doing a miserable job of preparing the kids for polite society, and we have to completely reorient them, as soon as possible.
The next post in this series is here.
March 17th, 2009 10:05 am
Wait, so you think it’s bad for leftist professors to take money from students’ parents and teach them that what their parents taught them was wrong…and you think that’s bad. But you feel that your job is to correct the “miserable job” that students’ parents have been doing by “completely reorienting” them…and you think that’s good?
I guess I’m not sure what the difference is, other than the fact that you believe your position is correct, and the leftist position is not. So, you see your job as teaching students not that their parents are fools, but that they did a miserable job of preparing them for polite society…it sounds like there’s disdain for parents all around! I’m sad that it’s come to this, whether or not it is justly deserved.
March 17th, 2009 10:25 am
Ding, Ding! We have a winner!
March 17th, 2009 12:23 pm
Wait, perhaps I misread your original post? Was this:
“Translation: these kids’ parents have been doing a miserable job of preparing the kids for polite society, and we have to completely reorient them, as soon as possible.”
supposed to be a summary of the attitude of the leftists, or your response to what you should do since these kids’ parents are not do a good job of preparing them?
Sorry, not try to be antagonistic, just trying to understand what you were saying!
March 17th, 2009 2:38 pm
Yes, I was summarizing the intent of Leftist professors. That’s why it says, “Translation”. I’m glad you asked, since I was pretty confused by your first comment.
And for the record: I am not suggesting that professors should by definition make NO attempt to encourage students to get relevant facts, and learn various perspectives ON those facts. What’s clear about the professor I describe, however, is that despite his students’ good performance in his class (which presumably was measured by their acquisition of facts, and their ability to summarize various perspectives ON those facts), he is still disappointed, very disappointed, that the students have not adopted _his_ perspective as the one they personally accept.
That’s a basic point. But the “meta-point” here is that the professor thought his comments were relevant at a faculty/administration “round table” on the topic of _diversity_. It is one more piece of evidence that diversity is not just a politically or ideologically neutral bit of racial reconciliation, and instead is a not-very-well-disguised Trojan horse bearing all kinds of infiltrators.
March 17th, 2009 3:30 pm
Ahh, it’s much clearer now. Sorry for the confusion! I agree, it’s a huge problem when professors are dissapointed with students who don’t buy into their interpretation of events. The best teachers take the pride in students who are able to defend their chosen positions well, regardless of whether or not they agree.
But to your main point: I couldn’t agree more than oftentimes, when there are discussions of “diversity” there are probably more things going on than “we just want everyone to get along.” However, do you think that this is really always the case? Do you think that there may be times when people just want to talk about being reconciled with each other?
I know that sometimes there is baggage. There’s always baggage with every issue. There’s baggage with abortion, with affirmative action, with gay marriage, with gun control, with the environment, and with diversity. Is there no way for us to still talk about aspects of diversity that do not cater to all the baggage that comes with it?
March 17th, 2009 4:06 pm
Two or three thoughts.
If there is such a way (to discuss diversity without the baggage), no one has yet discovered it, based on my observations. The main reason for this is simple: the big fans of “diversity” don’t think it’s a problem to conflate it with distilled essence of Leftism, so, not considering that to be baggage, they make no effort to divest themselves of it.
The very origin of the term “diversity” is itself of the Left. The use of the term was an attempt to apply a smokescreen to “multiculturalism” and “quota based affirmative action”, by Justice Powell in side opinion to the Bakke decision (which was about quotas in admissions to University of California). Powell wanted to continue the quotas without coming out and just saying so, and wrote an opinion that, as far as anyone can discover, is the earliest use of the term “diversity” as the aforementioned smokescreen.
Go to the third post in this series, and read the book mentioned there for the background. It’s very clearly presented, and unrefuted.
Given the leftist origin of the term, and given the leftists who promote the term as part of an overall leftist agenda, how, exactly, can we use the term without the baggage?
As I said, it is WAY more than mere “racial reconciliation”, a point on which virtually everyone agrees, whether from left or right.
March 18th, 2009 9:52 am
Hmm, interesting thoughts. So it sounds like your point is that the term “diversity” is so loaded with baggage that it’s almost unusable at this point. Would you say that’s a fair summary of your thoughts?
The issue is that in the common lexicon, “diversity”=”racial reconciliation/fairness/equality”. I would hope the best champions for true equality, etc would not be so attached to the term but the principle of reconciliation and equality. This may be surprising, but I don’t feel particularly dedicated to liberal/leftist/Democratic thought. Diversity has always seemed like a good idea to me, though maybe there is merit to your assertion that it is too baggage-laden for proper usage.
Of course, hopefully as Christians we are not too dedicated to any politically-charged term. Ideally, our allegiance lies with God’s Kingdom, and we follow that practically in whatever way it plays out. I think that at times it will lead us to look a bit conservative (a more limited government seems more conducive to the work of the Kingdom), while at times we might look a bit liberal (I’m still pretty sure it’s a good idea to take care of the environment). Now, I want no part of the corporate greed and wastefulness that is sometimes associated with the small-government conservatives, any more than I want any of the “eco-pagan” WE CAN SAVE THE EARTH BY OURSELVES attitude of many on the left. Our mandate is not to be Democrats, Republicans, or anything else but followers of Jesus, in whatever way that looks.
So all that to say, if ‘diversity’ is something that is needing some serious qualifications in order to be used appropriately (or maybe should be abandoned altogether), then I am definitely open.
March 18th, 2009 2:42 pm
Diversity is merely a descriptive adjective. The ‘left’ has turned this generic term into a noun. If one goes out to dinner at a buffet restarant one expects a diversity (or large variety of different) foods as opposed to just mashed potatoes at every station. But one would not expect to find mashed potatoes at one station, prime rib at another, pudding and cake at a third and a tiolet at the fourth. Yet liberals assert, by their definition of this term, an understanding that sexual behavior and skin color are not only ‘equal’ but are exactly the same thing. Yet they do not believe folks with white skin and folks with black skin should be treated equally as though one was blinfolded.
So, you may ask, what does this have to do with the war in Iraq? Nothing, except when a universiy professor brings the war into a “diversity” meeting. It’s helpful to understand convoluted logic which is the purvue of the left.
March 18th, 2009 3:38 pm
I will speak probably a little too stringly here, but honestly…it seems to me that comments like this:
“It’s helpful to understand convoluted logic which is the purvue of the left.”
are both unhelpful, overgeneralizing, and cause more harm than good. Please, let’s keep conversations like this to thoughtful discussion, rather than sarcastic attempts to cut down people we don’t agree with.
I’m not sure exactly what you’re getting at with the “diversity is not a noun” thing, but technically it really is a noun. Perhaps you’re thinking of “diverse”, which is the adjectival form of “diversity”? In the sentence: “If one goes out to dinner at a buffet restarant one expects a diversity of foods”, “diversity” is actually the noun and “of foods” is functioning as a descriptor. (It answers the question: “What kind of diversity is it?” In this case the answer is, “of foods”.)
As to racial equality (equal treatment no matter the skin color), I think one thing should be said. Suppose your family had been enslaved for a very long period of time by one family (say, my family). Over the years my family had developed a feeling of superiority over your family, and we always found new ways to think of your family as inferior to mine. Now, let’s suppose that after 200 or 300 years of this arrangement, someone in my family decided it was wrong to keep enslaving your family, so she set your whole family free. Well, no matter how much my family has been convinced cognitively that your family is equal to ours, the fact is that my family history reads like this: MASTER/RULER/SUPEROIR, while your family history reads like this: SLAVE/SUBORDINATE/INFERIOR. Would you get over this over night? How long would it take you? And not only that, but in the time that you’ve been slaving away, my family has been making economic gains and acquiring all kinds of handy skills that you could never have acquired. So, when your family members and my family members apply for college, guess who gets accepted? Of course I do, and you do not. Not because of skin color, not because of any other superficial thing, but because my family has been raised to be more qualified than yours in every way!
So, in this case, the question we must ask is this: What, truly, is FAIR? Is it fair for my family to constantly be singing our own praises of how we don’t discriminate or subjugate your family anymore, while your family suffers for lack of proper education and opporuntity? I think not.
Now, I’m really not arguing for or against Affirmative Action, but my story above is (at least sort of) similar the situation that these kinds of programs are INTENDING to address. All this to say, I think that white folks would do well to be very careful when championing the efficacy of a “colorblind” society. It’s not really about color (though some people make it about color, which is a shame). It’s about a reasonbly level playing field and looking out for people who don’t usually get much of a shot at life. Is this sometimes abused? Of course! Is it perfect? Far from it! Am I a big fan of Affirmative Action, as it stands now? Not really! But I think that whites would be wise to think more along these lines, rather than complain about the “preferential” treatment that minorities are getting, because it really is just not that simple.
March 19th, 2009 8:12 pm
Hello Hello (I love typing that),
I want to refocus again that diversity is NOT merely about providing equal opportunity to all, and avoiding racial discrimination. Quite the opposite, in fact, since it usually DOES involve racial discrimination, and self-consciously offers opportunities unequally.
But the real problem, again, is that it also comes accompanied by the entire panoply of leftist agenda-think, all the while pretending to be politically neutral and even-handed to all. And that fact really IS just that simple, as a few minutes with a browser and a search engine will reveal.
Which is why the professor in my post, above, was so certain of a welcome reception for regurgitated leftism in a diversity meeting. Contra Enharmonic, it IS logical for him to bring it up when he knows he’ll be well received, even though there is no logical connection between diversity and the war in Iraq.
March 20th, 2009 12:06 am
Dear Hello
What if the enslavement of my family ended 150 years ago? What if all the formerly enslaved members of my family and the former “superior-feeling” slave holder members of your family have all been in the grave for a century? Should this be cause for the current generation of my family to receive some sort of preferential treatment favoring them over your family and every other family that happens to have the same skin color as your family? And at what point, if ever, is my family going to begin to rely on self-determination, hard work, relentless pursuit of goals, and overcoming instead of playing the part of perpetual victim, blaming past history for the fact they don’t have everything they want?
Also I find your comment about what “white folk” should and shouldn’t do to be extremely racist. But sadly this is how we are taught to think these days. Do you really believe “white folk” are monolithic, like-minded in their thoughts and attitudes? And as far as “people who don’t really get much of a shot in life” are you prepared to declare that category entirely the domain of the non-white?
You see, this is the problem with looking at everything through race-conscious lenses. You don’t end racism that way – you perpetuate it.
March 23rd, 2009 12:00 am
Harmonicminer-
You said: “I want to refocus again that diversity is NOT merely about providing equal opportunity to all, and avoiding racial discrimination. Quite the opposite, in fact, since it usually DOES involve racial discrimination, and self-consciously offers opportunities unequally.”
Fair enough. My question at this point would be, what alternatives would you propose? If, on your account, we can’t use the word “diversity” anymore, what would be a better way of communicating the good things about the idea without bringing along all the baggage that you are suggesting is inherant in it?
amuzikman-It would probably be helpful to know that of my four grandparents, 2 of their families were definitely not living in the US until about 50 years ago (if that), and the other two come from families that were decidedly from the North. So, I have never been under the impression that my family (much less myself) has ever enslaved anyone.
That said, it seems to me that you’re really begging the question here: “And at what point, if ever, is my family going to begin to rely on self-determination, hard work, relentless pursuit of goals, and overcoming instead of playing the part of perpetual victim, blaming past history for the fact they don’t have everything they want?” I don’t know to what extent you were just playing to my example or if you were trying to say more about the attitude that you perceive African-Americans have. I don’t really know what to say, other than I’m sorry that this is the perception that you have. Out of the black people you know, do most act this way? Is your experience telling you that black people play the part of perpetual victim and blame past history for failing to reach their goals, or is that what your own assumptions are telling you? I can’t say that any one ethnicity makes more excuses than another, in my opinion.
People are lazy in every culture, and people work hard in every culture. My point with the story is that sometimes no matter how hard someone works, the world is stacked against them to the extent that they will never rise as high as others because the reality is that we do not have a level playing field in society. I am not suggesting that affirmative action is the best response to this or even an adequate one. All I am suggesting is that we would do well to be aware of the disparity and be sensitive to it. I am not talking about giving free rides to lazy people. Please don’t read that into what I’m saying.
I wanted to also address this: “Do you really believe “white folk†are monolithic, like-minded in their thoughts and attitudes? And as far as “people who don’t really get much of a shot in life†are you prepared to declare that category entirely the domain of the non-white?”
I don’t think white people are monolithic. Do you think black people are monolithic? You may have not read my whole post very carefully. I said, “it’s not really about color (though some people make it about color, which is a shame). It’s about a reasonbly level playing field and looking out for people who don’t usually get much of a shot at life.” Whether white, black, orange, whatever, people of privilege really would be better of looking for ways that the playing field is unbalanced to others’ disadvantage. Not that we are God and can be the bringers of happiness to all people, but it is our biblical mandate as Christians to look out for people, especially those who are having a tough time at life. Is that leftist brainwashing? No, it’s ALL OVER the scriptures, Old Testament, New Testament, virtually every book, especially the prophets. I’m not talking about legislating socialism, I’m talking about Christians genuinely looking out for people because they love God and feel that they should look out for people who are hurting because of that love.
March 23rd, 2009 6:24 am
Hello, you seem to have missed the entire point of this post. You say, “My point with the story is that sometimes no matter how hard someone works, the world is stacked against them to the extent that they will never rise as high as others because the reality is that we do not have a level playing field in society.” Can you give an example of this? You state this as though it is an undeiable truth that can’t be disputed. Did the original post ever claim that there IS a level playing field? You say, “…it is our biblical mandate as Christians to look out for people, especially those who are having a tough time at life.” Does the Bible speak about a level paying field? Your final statement, while broadly true, seems to assume that a univesity Diversity department accomplishes this. I beg to differ.
March 23rd, 2009 12:19 pm
Hi enharmonic,
Those comments were not intended to respond to the original post. It was a response to amuzikman on a related but different topic.
You asked for an example of what I was talking about. How about my friend whom we’ll call Brian? His parents don’t make very much money, so they couldn’t pay his way to college. They both work hard, except his mom was laid off a few years ago due to downsizing in her company and has not been able to find work. So instead of going to college, he had to go straight to work after high school in order to help support his family. He’s not irresponsible, he works hard, and he is bright. He was eligible for scholarship money, but his family needed him to work in order to help support his sister and brother. By now he should be pretty close to graduating college, but he’s only taken a couple classes at a community college. Because he’s had to work, he doesn’t have a degree, which means he also doesn’t have the opportunities that a degree would afford him.
This is the kind of thing that I am talking about. Hopefully you see what I mean, that life has worked out in such a way that it is more difficult for Brian to become successful. Not because he is lazy or stupid or wants to steal your tax money from you. How will this cycle ever be broken? If he is also stuck in the same dead end jobs as his parents, how will he send his kids to college so they can find better careers?
You asked: “Does the Bible speak about a level paying field?” It uses different language, but yes. The whole Jewish economic system, as defined in the Torah, is built on the concept of Jubilee. Jubilee requires that every so often, all debts be cancelled and all slaves be set free. It prevents this vicious cycle where the poor constantly get poorer and the rich constantly get richer. So, in short, the Bible is ALL ABOUT leveling the playing field!
You said: “Your final statement, while broadly true, seems to assume that a univesity Diversity department accomplishes this. I beg to differ.” I am really puzzled as to why you would think that. Here is my last statement from my last post:
“I’m not talking about legislating socialism, I’m talking about Christians genuinely looking out for people because they love God and feel that they should look out for people who are hurting because of that love.”
Where in there do you read ANYTHING about university diversity departments? I’m talking about Christians looking out for people like my friend Brian. I am for any methods that achieve this end, whether this requires diversity departments or not.
March 25th, 2009 11:05 am
Hello
I was indeed playing off your example. but I also think there are forces within the African American community that sadly continue to promote a victim mentality. The playing field will forever SEEM grossly uneven, regardless of reality when one is convinced they are and always will be a victim.
You said “All this to say, I think that white folks would do well to be very careful when championing the efficacy of a “colorblind†society”. That seems to me to be a very monolithic and racist statement. It assumes no ‘white folk” have thought the issue through with any degree of “care”. It assumes all “white folk” have identical understanding and intent when “championing a color-blind society”. It also assumes that only those who are white need to be cautioned about their “color-blind society” notions. If it’s “not really about color”, then why make this statement?
March 26th, 2009 3:05 pm
amuzikman-
You said: “there are forces within the African American community that sadly continue to promote a victim mentality.” I agree. These forces also exist in the caucasian community. And the hispanic community. And definitely in the korean community. In fact, probably in every community. The reality is that, broadly speaking, African Americans have been actual victims more often than generically European people have in the US. Dispute that if you wish, but if you think that’s false then we’re probably at an impasse. Remember, segregation was still legal in the US 50-60 years ago. There are plenty of people alive who remember it, and remember it well. This is, broadly speaking, a people group that has been the victim in ways that the broadly caucasian community has not experienced in this country. ALL I am suggesting is that any of us would be wise to keep this in mind, not forget our history, and try to look out for each other the best we can.
I don’t relish nitpicking, but I should address a couple other things. You said: “It assumes no ‘white folk†have thought the issue through with any degree of “careâ€.” The statement actually assumes no such thing. I don’t really know what to say other than that.
You said: “It assumes all “white folk†have identical understanding and intent when “championing a color-blind societyâ€.” Again, not true. I am refering to the degree of care required in dealing with the idea, nothing more.
You said: “It also assumes that only those who are white need to be cautioned about their “color-blind society†notions.” Again, this is simply not true. I was speaking about white people, but we can talk about other races, if you like.
The thing that’s “not really about color” is the fact that as Christians we all need to look out people. One way SPECIFICALLY that I have been told by people I know who are of African-American decent is that when white people talk of being “color-blind”, it is deeply offensive to them. What it sounds like to them, I am told, is a command to “fall in line with the majority culture, whether you like it or not.” Therefore, I will say again,
I think that white folks would do well to be very careful when championing the efficacy of a “colorblind†societyâ€.
Not that NO ONE thinks carefully about it, that everyone even agrees on what it is, or that only white people should take care when doing so! Please understand I’m not attacking you or trying to paint you a racist. I don’t think you’re a racist. I ask that you afford my comments the same benefit of the doubt.
March 26th, 2009 9:14 pm
Hmmm… Hello, the proper response to African Americans who are offended at the idea of a color blind society is to read the history of the civil rights movement, and their own major figure, Martin Luther King Jr, who DID believe in exactly that.
A color blind society is exactly what we need. I don’t know what the phrase “fall in line with the majority culture” even means. We all live in the same culture, especially given modern media penetration and the simple fact of integration in our society. I note that “victim mentality” blacks are only too happy to “fall in line with the majority culture” if they can get enough whites, latinos and asians to vote with them to elect politicians who will distribute benefits far and wide to those “victims.” I note that since the recent election, they are only two happy to “fall in line with the majority culture.”
Phrases like that are purely and only rhetorical smokescreens, used to hide from facts by claiming hurt feelings. And I sense NO gratitude from blacks to the descendants of the tens or hundreds of millions of whites for the sacrifices that were made to end slavery.
Is there an “honoring the fallen soldiers who fought for our freedom” day in the black community?
No. But they have Kwansa.
Wouldn’t you think that honoring the fallen northern soldiers of the civil war would be a duty? My great grandfather left WISCONSIN voluntarily at the age of 15 (he lied about his age) to join the union army and fight. He was captured. He escaped, nearly being killed in the process (it’s a good thing they didn’t have repeating rifles, because the first volley missed, and then he was in the woods and running faster than his pursuers). I am here because he survived. No black person has ever asked me, “Did any of your ancestors fight for my ancestors’ freedom?”
We are all descended from slaves and slave owners. African Americans are descended from AFRICANS who sold them into slavery. For several decades, the main thing holding many of them back has been their own attitudes, not structural barriers in society, though the guilty white Left population has provided irresistible temptation to them in the form of subsidies for bad behavior. Those guilty whites are the true racists, because they think blacks as a group can’t make it on their own. I am NOT a racist, because I know they can, if they choose.
The focus on victim-hood instead of the focus on opportunity is literally killing the African-American poor, and it is the white guilty Left in league with so-called “black leaders” of the Jackson/Sharpton ilk that are complicit in it.
Regarding “diversity,” the problem isn’t the word, it is the intent. The intent is to give people political leverage to gain benefits they did not earn. The intent is to move the nation Left, as fast as possible. The intent is to put whites in a position of perpetual apology, with no possible way of meeting as truly equal individual persons, with neither having any special claim on the other, not merely as members of a racial or ethnic group. That intent is nakedly expressed. Read any book promoting “diversity,” attend “diversity training” somewhere, attend a “diversity sensitivity session” pretty much anywhere, and you won’t be able to avoid these facts.
March 29th, 2009 9:47 am
Hello
Thank you for the response. I can only say I am deeply troubled by this perpetuation of racial obsession. The entire conversation is framed within the context of this or that racial/ethnic group, how they think, what they do, etc. In spite of your protestations some of your comments, such as the one I responded to, do indeed imply that members of each group think and act in similar ways. Can we not agree that within each of the groups you mention there is a tremendous diversity of opinion? Are there not individuals who may happen to have dark skin who appreciate and support lighter-skined individuals who speak out in support of a color-blind society? Your denial of assumptions is duly noted but without your additional comments and explanations the original statement about what “white folks” should or shouldn’t do stands as a racist comment.
Let’s try it another way. Would you be willing, then, to state the following?
All this to say, I think that black folks would do well to be very careful when taking offense at those who champion the efficacy of a “colorblind†societyâ€.
And those individuals who tell you they are deeply offended. Are they offended by those who “champion the efficacy of a color-blind society” (which would include Dr. Martin Luther King), or are they offended because some “white folk” dare to have the same dream?
April 2nd, 2009 9:27 am
Sorry it took me a little while to write back…
I think the crux of the problem is that there has never been a country with as DIVERSE (ie lots of cultures/backgrounds/ethnicities) as the USA, and there has never been a more diverse region than Southern California (unless you can think of one). We are being faced with the reality that there really are significant differences between different people groups, so how do you deal with them? For some, the answer is to advocate a “colorblind” (or whatever you want to call it) society, where we just pretend like everyone is exactly the same. However, everyone is not the same. Call that racist if you like, but I call it simple observation. It’s not necessarily a matter of skin color only (if at all). It’s a matter of geographical location, of class, of family of origin, etc. And yes, “race” probably figures somewhere in there too.
Here’s an analogy I’m making up as i type: If I am coaching a football team, I am going to act in a very discriminatory way. There are particular characteristics of people that are relevant to their inclusion on a football team. Some examples are size, speed, catching ability, etc. If I have 11 lineman, my team will stink. If I have 11 quarterbacks, it will probably be worse. I need people who bring different things to the table because that is what the sport demands.
Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are usually considered the best quarterbacks in the NFL. However if both were on my team, one would probably not play much at all. Let’s say Brady was my starter, and Manning came to me (the coach) and said, “It’s not fair! I’m the second best player in the NFL! How can you play these people who are clearly inferior?” What will I tell him? I’ll say, “Peyton, you’re not playing because right now I have all the quarterbacks I need. I know our running back is the 300th best player in the league, but he’s our only running back. Though you are better at what you do than he is at what he does, you are not a running back, and I need a running back.”
On a football team, the ethnic background of each player is irrelevant to their performance on the field. On a university faculty, whether you can run or throw is equally irrelevant to your ability as a professor. In instances where teams, corporations, and the like need diverse (different) skill sets, maybe for some a diversity (difference) of backgrounds/cultures/whatever are as important to a football team as having some lineman, some wide receivers, and some linebackers.
So, perhaps in at least some instances our cultural differences are relevant. Isn’t that the question: is race/culture/background relevant, and if it is relevant, then how can we known when? Your answers seem to be “No” to the first question. My answer is “Sometimes, and I have some ideas but I’m open to suggestions!”