tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post2187623437541135752..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: The Diversity Rationale and the Problem of SubjectificationDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-21150426676106420852007-06-30T15:17:00.000-07:002007-06-30T15:17:00.000-07:00There is another issue at play here other than how...There is another issue at play here other than how diversity policies are framed (which I realize is simplifying what you wrote about...but I needed some shorthand), is the sort of naievte that often goes along with such policies. They are treated as ends in themselves. As if were you to create a diverse "whatever" (a school, or workplace, neighborhood, etc.) then everything else will take care of itself. Well, how do we know the rest will take care of itself? The fact is we don't. And we are SO touchy about the subject that we don't even like to ask the questions invovled in evaluating diversity. It is so bad the <A HREF="http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-06-25jl.html" REL="nofollow">Robert Putnam</A> is afraid to release the findings of his study on diversity exactly because it shows that diversity doesn't "take care" of anything.<BR/><BR/>For too long we have been content to define the "diverse" as being "good" and "non-diverse" as being "bad". The truth of the matter may be that diversity is neutral, or a mixed bag, at best. You can have really fine diverse schools and really crappy diverse schools. Obviously it is NOT the diversity that is the determining factor. But "diversity" as the goal of education is accept in such an unquestioned fashion, we, as a society, ignore the things that DO determine the ultimate quality of a school.Rich Hortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15561931187909269006noreply@blogger.com