Bad news on the diversity front

To dissent from its dogmas is to declare oneself to be a heathen. Seriously, to question its premises is to be thought of as a closet hater by the Establishment.

Why of course anyone who might think that America would ever again engage in something like the Tuskegee Experiment is a raving loon. It's not like it happened during the lifetime of anyone still living.

We fully trust that minority status, genetics, race, or religion will never, ever be used by the government to harm a living soul.

The unbearable oppression being suffered by America's whites must surely require the efforts of a Manhattan Project-like scale to fix and we are surely doomed if it this silly idea of a diverse society continues to grow.

What to do about it? That's been the whole human endeavor from day one.

We have to return to encouraging basic assimilation - language and economic assimilation, as well as limited social assimilation (as in, you embrace our rule of law, if not our child-rearing or marriage customs. IE You may arrange marriages, IF the couple consents.) The rest we can write off as enjoyable diversity.

But if we cannot converse with one another, and cannot understand one another, and cannot work together, social problems will ensue. There's a balance to this, as to all things. I think that if all these criteria are met, then we can enjoy each other. In the old days, groups like the Girl Scouts were put to work visiting with immigrant women, teaching them basic hygiene if they didn't have a grasp of it, and otherwise just socializing and introducing them to products and services they may not have been aware of. Lending a helping hand with the little ones. Basic community things.

Our hunkering down, withdrawing like turtles, may very well be just another aspect of abject individualism. It can harm us in more ways than one.

Putnam’s study reveals that immigration and diversity not only reduce social capital between ethnic groups, but also within the groups themselves. Trust, even for members of one’s own race, is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friendships fewer.

One wonders why. I mean, it's not like people are *hostile* to immigrants in this country, or anything. That they are distrustful and wary is just silly on their part. Right?

That doesn't explain why trust goes down even between members of the same group. One would think that given their common identity, they would band together for strength.

That's a very human trait, and it's not bad in and of itself, even though it can turn ugly.

And that's why some of us want the government to protect our interests.

Before you go off.

I lived through the period before the Voting Rights Act, just old enough to see the dogs on TV in Alabama. Logically I know those days won't return but like depression era survivors, a feeling safety is always just a bit short of complete.

"Because Diversity is a dogmatic secular religion. To dissent from its dogmas is to declare oneself to be a heathen."
Oh puh-leeez, Rod. No wonder Putnam is reluctant to report his findings. It's because pundits like you will use it as scholarly cover to take stabs at "political corrctness." How very 1991 of you. Cut the college-newspaper rhetoric and find a better way to start a discussion on this subject.

I read this article earlier tonight and wasn't impressed. Personally, I think this is a problem we're just going to have to muddle through. What I find most important about the study isn't that diversity decreases trust and neighborliness, but that it's a temporary effect. That to me is a really hopeful thing.

Besides, why does this study discredit diversity? All it does is highlight a trend which if we are aware of, we can work to amerliorate. I like anotherbeliever's comment about the girl scouts reaching out to new members of the community. Not for assimlation reasons (which I think are overblown boogey-man arguments anyways, although I could be wrong), but in order to connect with eachother. This is really something the church should be taking the lead in, I think.

However, in the meantime I don't at all see this as an argument against diversity. I think it probably represents a step on the way to being a less divided country, which IMO can only be a good thing.

>Your comments are hurtful, judgmental, and ignorant at best;

Yes, but he got to say something bad about liberals. And when you come down to it, isn't that the point? 'Cause we're all evil and stuff. And Michael Moore is fat.

Oh, Puh-leeze insane kitten. There are better ways of proving Rod's point than putting up a predictable post like that. Admit it, your a plant trying to help him right? Seriously though. This study isn't about discrimination or oppresion. Its about integrating new cultural elements into a society and the difficulty of doing that. Assimilation is a must. This doesn't mean you can't have a diverse society, but it does mean a nation can't easily survive if it consists of diverse societies. The difference is between one society that has different cultural elements but functions as one polity and multiple competitive societies trying to become the dominant polity. Richards points were actually relevent. in the past, our country consisted of multiple societies such as WASPS, Irish Catholics, Italian Catholics, Blacks, etc who competed, sometimes violently, with each other but ultimately one would be in power.
During the traumas of the twentieth century such as the World Wars people of different ethnicities were thrown together and had to get along and we began moving towards being a single society. The Civil rights movement should have been the crowning achievement of this trend. Unfortunately, it looks to me like people are defining themselves in terms of group affiliation more than as citizens of the USA and members of that larger society and polity. I think we are moving backwards and the push for diversity as it currently exists is only increasing this fragmentation. It also strikes me as racist and has for a long time.
When I was a teenager, I went to the Wisconsin Annual Conference of the UN Church. There was a debate about funding classes and services in Spanish. Well, thats all well and good, but would these classes teach people english and give them the tools to be economically successful? Oh no! Teaching them English wouldn't be tolerant of diversity. See, either diversity was more important than the welfare of individuals or it was simply a way to keep the immigrants down. Which was it? Either way, it was a bad thing. Hmmm. That may have begun my disillusionment with te Methodists and my long journey to Orthodoxy.

I read this article earlier tonight and wasn't impressed. Personally, I think this is a problem we're just going to have to muddle through. What I find most important about the study isn't that diversity decreases trust and neighborliness, but that it's a temporary effect. That to me is a really hopeful thing.
Well, everything is temporary, and in the long run, we're all dead, and perhaps after several generations, the distrust and hostility will go away -- but why choose to take on "diversity" and all its troubles in the first place? Why choose to destroy current communities to replace them with "diverse" ones that will, in the fullness of time, recreate the sense of identity and community that existed in the first place (and presumably be less "diverse" as a result)? It's all rather unnecessary, even, dare I say, gratuitous, unless the destruction and recreation is, as I suspect, the point of the enterprise.

Guess we'll have to read the entire report to understand whih version of community Putnam is talking about. Is it a neighborhood, a church, a business association, a school? All of these are communities.

Where do you all find community?

My guess about why people don't trust even people in their own groups when the neighborhood suffers increased diversity is that they can no longer socialize freely with members of their own group. They don't want to say or do anything that might get back to a non-group member. Therefore, it becomes safer to just hunker down and keeps to oneself.

For those saying that this will just all work out in the end, ask yourself a few questions.

1. How will it work out? Does it happen because one group ends up causing the other group(s) to leave?
2. What does it become in the end? Assume the groups work out a relationship and new social dynamic, but what if that social dynamic is based on social ideas we find unacceptable today? For instance let's say the new neighborhood accepts police corruption and kickbacks.
3. There are several instances across the globe of people NOT ever getting along. Is it safe to assume that will happen here?

Even if it does work out in the end, it won't be the same neighborhood you knew and the intervening time could be hellish.

AnotherBeliever lists some conditions for assimilation. There are problems though. Let's take a look at Muslims for instance. It is religiously allowed for them to take four wives? Are we going to deny them their religious rights? In this day and age, it's only a matter of time before such an issue becomes hot. How about Mexicans who come here and are culturally used to an age of consent of 12 years-old? Aren't they just being diverse and culturally different?

Diversity is nice at a certain level. It's nice to have a group of people with diverse talents. It's nice to have a diverse range of perspectives. It's not good to have a diverse set of societal beliefs. It's like a football team. It's good to have a diverse set of skills, but everyone needs to follow the game plan. Plus, we don't put the 150lb guy on the offensive line just to be diverse.

>He's a liberal maniac

He's a maniac, a maniac I know and he's dancing like he's never danced befoooore.

Uh, you missed the point that the drawbacks were short term.

megan mcardle summed it up much better, avoiding the whole "this thing I don't like is really a RELIGION!!!" schtick.

It would be interesting to see the actual data when (if) he gets around to publishing it - it's always possible that he's misinterpreting his own results, especially if he's as poor a social scientist as M_David believes. For example, although the article in City Journal says that 'more diversity = less trust" proved true in communities large and small, from big cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Boston to tiny Yakima, Washington, rural South Dakota, and the mountains of West Virginia, I note that all the examples given of diverse, 'trustless' cities are large - LA, San Francisco, Chicago. Without access to the original data and the details of the study, one might reasonably conclude, rather, that residents of large urban populations have less trust, and that diversity is merely a proxy for this, in that large populations are apt to be more diverse.

So if science is taking a beating by liberals, then it's been shot dead, dressed up, and necro-"loved" by conservatives.

Anyways, it seems one point is that Rod just loves bad news.

Part of the problem I see is that too often when something is raised up as an adversary to a religious group, that thing takes on the epithet "religion of".

There is no such thing as a "religion of Diversity", Rod. As a professional wordsmith, I'd have thought you'd appreciate precision in usage, and consciously choosing the connotations you want for your intended context. As it stands, your clarifying post above makes you sound like you are whining.

Call it a "dogma", if you must use a loaded term. I also think that using "religion of" dignifies the qualified term in a manner which tends to defeat the purpose of your critique. IJS

Or, blank, one point would be that you don't read and comprehend.

Thanks, Franklin, for pointing out the negative aspects of the "religion" metaphor. And it's just bad writing too. IJS.

And the point about liberals and science -- I'm not going to deny that there are some conservatives who deny science when it doesn't suit their preconceived notions. (This is not the same thing as criticizing certain scientific practices -- e.g., embryonic stem-cell research -- as unethical). But any time someone on the left says that it's only the Right that's afraid to deal with scientific truth, and wishes to politicize science, I will point to the example of Robert Putnam, who suppressed his own research because of its political implications.

We all laugh at the right-wingers in the National Review cruise story who looked at NR's Rich Lowry like he was crazy when he told them that the US could lose the Iraq war. They couldn't accept this because it didn't suit their ideology. If you think this malady only affects conservatives, you're dreaming.

"I will point to the example of Robert Putnam, who suppressed his own research because of its political implications."

According to diversity critic John Leo. He didn't bother to interview Putnam for the article and doesn't explain whether he's even seen the research, since Leo says it isn't available.

So Leo is making his own politically-loaded conclusions--that you've swallowed hook, line, and sinker--yet there is only isolated evidence of what Putnam thinks about his research.

I realize that City Journal has become the home for "intelligent" race baiting on the right, but this story adds up very very little. And where is there evidence that liberals are criticizing the research, beyond Leo's well-trod PC trope?

Thanks for posting that, Dr. Putnam. I withdraw my repeating of Leo's allegation, and I apologize to you for making it.

In response to several posters' queries, here's the URL for my full article. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x

Bob Putnam

To M. David:

Yes, I do deny exactly that. You can check the evidence from six years ago yourself by looking up the various sources I cited in my posting above.

Bob Putnam

We'll see if reason and facts can penetrate certain members ideology here.

"is to never trust John Leo or City Journal. How many readers will take that lesson to heart?"

Exactly. This is twice in two days that a conservative columnist's opinion has been posted about and then later debunked by the evidence. The Will column on Oakland resulted in the same fate.

Okay, Rod. Merriam-Webster gives us the following:

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

If you can show me the direct parallels between a belief in the supernatural (or something that requires a similar leap of faith) and a strongly held opinion about diversity, I'm willing to concede that "religion" in one of those two definitions above is applicable to "of Diversity".

In the meantime, I respectfully ask you to expand on your intended connotations. When you write "religion" in this context, do you mean "institutionalized" in some fashion? Can you name a leadership that forms the doctrines and communicates them to the faithful? Can you point to a basic doctrine that, when adhered to, permits any observer to identify the believer as a "Diversity-ist?"

I could easily leave that as more than a little sarcastic, but I really would like to understand this usage better. It appears to be ubiquitous. If I'm going to complain about it, the least I can do is listen to reasoned responses to my complaint.

Dr. Putnam is certainly correct that he discussed his big survey with the press in 2001. I wrote about it at the time.

For the next half decade, however, he was pretty quiet about it. Then in the fall of 2006, it resurfaced in a column in the Financial Times. Here's an excerpt from my "Fragmented Future" cover story in the Jan. 15, 2007 issue of The American Conservative:

It was one of the more irony-laden incidents in the history of celebrity social scientists. While in Sweden to receive a $50,000 academic prize as political science professor of the year, Harvard’s Robert D. Putnam, a former Carter administration official who made his reputation writing about the decline of social trust in America in his bestseller Bowling Alone, confessed to Financial Times columnist John Lloyd that his latest research discovery—that ethnic diversity decreases trust and co-operation in communities—was so explosive that for the last half decade he hadn’t dared announce it “until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it ‘would have been irresponsible to publish without that.’”

In a column headlined “Harvard study paints bleak picture of ethnic diversity,” Lloyd summarized the results of the largest study ever of “civic engagement,” a survey of 26,200 people in 40 American communities:

When the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust. ‘They don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions,’ said Prof Putnam. ‘The only thing there’s more of is protest marches and TV watching.’

Lloyd noted, “Prof Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, ‘the most diverse human habitation in human history.’”

As if to prove his own point that diversity creates minefields of mistrust, Putnam later protested to the Harvard Crimson that the Financial Times essay left him feeling betrayed, calling it “by two degrees of magnitude, the worst experience I have ever had with the media.” To Putnam’s horror, hundreds of “racists and anti-immigrant activists” sent him e-mails congratulating him for finally coming clean about his findings.

Lloyd stoutly stood by his reporting, and Putnam couldn’t cite any mistakes of fact, just a failure to accentuate the positive. It was “almost criminal,” Putnam grumbled, that Lloyd had not sufficiently emphasized the spin that he had spent five years concocting. Yet considering the quality of Putnam’s talking points that Lloyd did pass on, perhaps the journalist was being merciful in not giving the professor more rope with which to hang himself. For example, Putnam’s line—“What we shouldn’t do is to say that they [immigrants] should be more like us. We should construct a new us”—sounds like a weak parody of Bertolt Brecht’s parody of Communist propaganda after the failed 1953 uprising against the East German puppet regime: “Would it not be easier for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?”

Before Putnam hid his study away, his research had appeared on March 1, 2001 in a Los Angeles Times article entitled “Love Thy Neighbor? Not in L.A.” Reporter Peter Y. Hong recounted, “Those who live in more homogeneous places, such as New Hampshire, Montana or Lewiston, Maine, do more with friends and are more involved in community affairs or politics than residents of more cosmopolitan areas, the study said.”

http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_01_15/cover.html

Mr. Sailer, I would request that you comment on the following comparison.

Professor Putnam was unhappy with a story and analysis I wrote in the Financial Times about this, saying that I had accentuated the negative. I’m happy to say that while presenting these bleak findings, he was insistent that trends are not fate. An insult to reason By John Lloyd.

It was “almost criminal,” Putnam grumbled, that Lloyd had not sufficiently emphasized the spin that he had spent five years concocting. Steve Sailer, in the posted excerpt above.

Help me, please, uncover exactly what "spin" Prof. Putnam concocted, other than your personal views of his professional analysis of the data. It would be nice, too, if you could summarize certain facts, like how many months you spent with the survey data, and your own academic credentials to elicit respect for your analysis thereof.

Yeah, I'm being a bit sarcastic. I'm also more than a bit tired of the assumption that I can't comprehend on my own what I read, and I'm better off taking a pundit's opinion as fact instead of reading the original and coming to my own conclusions. I'm not looking to be right or for you to be wrong, Mr. Sailer. I'm just looking for some honest commentary that doesn't need provocative rhetoric.

To summarize a rather complicated chronology to the best of my knowledge, my understanding is that Dr. Putnam gave some publicity to his big community trust survey findings in 2001, which is when I first wrote about them. He then maintained virtual radio silence in the press on the subject for the next half decade, until he gave a surprisingly frank interview he quickly regretted to John Lloyd of the Financial Times in the fall of 2006 in Sweden, in which he said he hadn't been talking about his findings because until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it ‘would have been irresponsible to publish without that.’”

Putnam then launched a campaign complaining that the Financial Times hadn't focused on the boring happy-clappy politically correct part of his Swedish presentation, but instead had focused on the interesting, newsworthy part.

A Harvard Crimson story takes it from there from Putnam's point of view (but even this is very revealing about Putnam's mindset):

A new study by Robert D. Putnam concludes that social cohesion is ultimately achievable even in countries with high levels of ethnic diversity. So the Harvard political scientist was bowled over this month when he found that his work was being praised by “racists and anti-immigrant activists”—with hundreds sending him complimentary e-mails.

On a recent tour of Europe, Putnam, best known for his 2000 book “Bowling Alone,” rolled out his findings before crowds of academics as well as several journalists—including John Lloyd of the Financial Times (FT). It was Lloyd’s account that led Putnam, who served in President Carter’s administration, to ever-so-briefly become a darling of the right.

In a phone interview this week from Princeton University, where Putnam is spending his sabbatical year as he finishes a book on religion in American life, the professor described the FT coverage and the resulting brouhaha as, “by two degrees of magnitude, the worst experience I have ever had with the media.”

Putnam, who is the Malkin professor of public policy at Harvard, first revealed the results of his most recent study in Uppsala, Sweden on Sept. 30, where he received the Skytte Prize, a $50,000 award granted annually to the “scholar who...has made the most valuable contribution to political science.” He spoke again days later at the University of Manchester in England, where he is launching a transatlantic research project.

At both talks, Putnam emphasized his study’s three principal conclusions. First, advanced countries such as the U.S. will inevitably see increases in immigration and diversity, which will strengthen the countries overall.

Second, in the short term, diversity and immigration might challenge community cohesion and make people less trustful of each other.

Third, a society can overcome these challenges by breaking down socially constructed barriers, creating a new sense of “we.”

While Putnam’s conclusion is upbeat, a front page headline in the FT on Oct. 9 proclaimed, “Harvard study paints bleak picture of ethnic diversity.”

The majority of the 431-word article dwelled on the more pessimistic parts of Putnam’s findings. But in the second-to-last paragraph, reporter Lloyd paraphrased Putnam as saying that immigration benefits “importing” and “exporting” countries. Lloyd quoted Putnam as saying that trends “have been socially constructed, and can be socially reconstructed.” And in the final paragraph, Lloyd quoted Putnam as saying, “We should construct a new us.”

Still, Putnam thought that the FT—a 118-year-old paper that describes itself as “the friend of the honest financier”—had been less than honest in its portrayal of his work.

Referring to his study’s trio of conclusions, Putnam said, “It’s almost criminal that the Financial Times left the third point out.”

Lloyd, a weekly columnist for the FT who previously served as the paper’s Moscow bureau chief, stands by his reporting.

In a phone interview from London yesterday, Lloyd said that his article in the paper’s Oct. 9 British edition “did include the positive spin” that Putnam put on his work. And Lloyd’s follow-up Web-exclusive analysis includes seven paragraphs explicating Putnam’s more optimistic third point...

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=515276

Dr. Putnam, I'm humbled at the chance you might read this post! I though "Bowling Alone" was brilliant. I'm actually in Palestine right now and boy is it a mess here. I get preachy with my new Palestinian friends, albeit as respectful as I can be, and tell them "they lack social capital" as the primary cause for their inability to rise up from the ashes of Israeli occupation. Where a traditionally collectivist soceity such as the Palestinian one has been "affected by" the West, Israel, militant Islam...it's no surprise it's like a bucket of crabs. If you ever want to do research over here in Bethlehem, I'll sell my soul to be your assistant... (I'm a political science grad student at Villanova now)

As someone who teaches at an anti-bias school with a curriculum built around diversity issues, I can say that those of us involved in this work do not find Putnam's research news. We are aware of what happens when diversity occurs in a system where the economic institutions and institutions of memory (schools especially) as well as the instruments of political association are in the hands of a homogeneous few: the haves view the have-nots as outsiders based on ethnic or racial criteria which are used to exclude the recently arrived from participation in social institutions. This is US history 101.

Drehel, in his comment that diversity is a religion, shows how little he has read of what diversity education involves. It starts from this problem, that diversity--by itself--produces exactly what Putnam is highlighting. Diversity, in diversity education, is not a solution. It is a simple fact of the human situation. That's it--an empirical starting point. Diversity education moves on from there to address prejudice, break down barriers, and help people move beyond the impulse to "hunker down."

Diversification, on the other hand, attempts to address the problem of how the haves respond to diversity. They respond from a position of privilege, security, and power. It's a complex problem, and if you could get your hands on Charles Taylor's essay on multiculturalism (in the collection of the same title) he spells out the philosophical dilemmas facing such attempts (it's a 50 page essay--the problems are complex). Ultimately, however, he hits upon Gadamer's idea--the fusing of horizons of experience--as the way beyond the atomization that is "hunkering down."

Breaking beyond the fear of difference, however, is the first step. And if horizons never meet--the first goal of diversity education--what we get (which is what we've always gotten) is "hunkering down."

I simply cannot see how anyone can look at how Putnam handled his important survey and not come to the conclusion he deliberately underplayed the data.

Why get he get mad at the FT article? I can think of no other reason than:

a) it gave a different slant on the data - a non-liberal one
b) it brought non-liberal analysis of his data to the broader world

You can get this slant from reading "Bowling Alone" as well. It has great data in the first half, but has strained analysis all in one direction in the second. Now, I'm not saying folk should not have opinions, I'm just saying a fair scientist gives both sides in search of the truth.

Finally, data from the social sciences should always be published far and wide, in journals and the pubic, regardless of the ideological slant, and no scientist should ever be unhappy it gets to a wider audience.

M_David, did you read the following posted by Prof. Putnam in this thread [Posted by: Bob Putnam | June 27, 2007 4:47 PM]?

Over the last six years, those data have become one of the most widely-used data-sets in the social sciences, downloaded and analyzed by hundreds of other researchers. Finally, contrary to Leo's claim, we have not "published only an initial summary" of our findings, but an elaborate 38-page journal article, packed with charts, statistics and methodological details, and as I have said, the raw original data have been publicly available for six years, an invitation to early scrutiny that is almost unprecedented in social science. In short, this story is the exact opposite of suppressing results.

Just wondering what it is you are responding to.

This thread has degenerated into a question of when Putnam made his findings available to the media and general public, but is avoiding the finding’s very damning evidence against diversity and multiculturalism.

So, I’d like to ask Mr Putnam, how does he intend to accomplish “deconstructing” (his term) racial and ethnic lines? Would he support abolishing public and private racial preferences that persist despite Court rulings that timorously chip away at them (or in the case of Grutter, perpetuate them for an additional 25 years)?

Sig: I'm glad you've returned to the topic of the effects of diversity, though, because I've been wondering about something, too. What's the point of fuming about diversity, as if we had some kind of choice about whether to let it happen or not? It has already happened, and will continue to happen. Caucasians of northwestern European heritage are a minority in this world, and that's a fact. No single form of cultural hegemony lasts forever--not even in ancient Egypt--and that's a fact too. Globalization and world-wide mobility will mean that different cultures and ethnic groups come into close contact more frequently than before, and I don't see that changing soon, either. Things change. Should we not focus our efforts on the best possible way of dealing with change productively, rather than wishing really hard that it would stop happening?

I hope we can get back to discussing the main issue too. But Sig, I've gotta say that the way you frame this speaks exactly to what grates about Diversity. It always seems to be set up as something that has to happen to white people -- that is, as a change of consciousness that must be effected by force on white people. From what I've read of Putnam's research, he's not talking about how white people behave in the presence of minorities; he's making a point about how people in general behave when living and working among people not like themselves.

The public schools in Dallas County are almost wholly populated by blacks and Latinos. There is a significant amount of racial tension between blacks and Latinos. I would guess that Putnam's research speaks to that phenomenon. And nobody has much commented on my remark about how corporate diversity programs, far from making people more comfortable with living and working among people from different backgrounds, tend to make people more on edge about it, for fear of saying the wrong thing. That's been my experience, and I'd like to hear from others who have had the same experience, or perhaps different experiences.

Putnam's research, insofar as it's been correctly reported and characterized, indicates that it's not an easy thing to get radically different sorts of people to live together in harmony -- and that when you force this sort of thing, there are significant social costs to be paid. Nobody doubts that we live in a pluralistic and diverse society, and developing tolerance and mutual understanding must be our society-wide goal. Putnam's research suggests a go-slow approach, in which we can get to know each other and live better together without sacrificing so much social capital.

When social engineers try to force society -- or societies within society -- into ideological categories that ignore social realities of the sort that Putnam's research points to, we have trouble. It can't be more important to meet some abstract idea of diversity when it costs so much in terms of society's well being. Can it?

Go marinate in your little white skin ponds. Who cares about you?

Heh. Insane Kitten, it's easy to be profound when all you have to do is state the obvious.

Hattie has really made my point for me, and quite succinctly, too. It would require a long, thoughtful essay to make it more clearly. I'm not the person for that, and this isn't the place, so I'm just going to say it bluntly. After all, we don't like PC walking on eggshells, right?

I'm not the one who framed this discussion in terms of white people. I naturally think of it that way, because I am white, so I'm always thinking about how things will affect ME. (And that in itself could be pretty annoying to people who aren't white, I would think.) But aside from that, I'd say white people are the ones who have set it up so that diversity discussions are all about Us and how much we're going to let Those People (of whatever color) get away with. There is a mindset of white privilege and white ownership. The discussion could be framed in terms of how we could create an ownership society for EVERYBODY, about how we could honor the contributions and concerns of all. Lord, how I wish we could see it that way. But in general, we don't.

Of course Rod is right. White people aren't the only ones who feel this way. Any ownership group will see the rise of a competing group of others as a potential threat and encroachment. And their perception will be correct to some extent. Diversity means change, and people don't like change. They fear losing what they've got, however little it may be. Look at the reaction of the castes just above the lowest caste in India, to the idea of affirmative action for the lowest of the low.

And Rod, of course you are right that "a change of consciousness that must be effected by force" is not the best way to change consciousness. But let's be realistic and honest. White people--or the Ownership Group in this country, if you want a more neutral term--had NO problem effecting changes by force as long as it wasn't us. And we're talking about real, physical, violent force here, not just the soft coercion of suggesting that if you don't take the diversity course, you'll get a bad performance appraisal. What was done to African Americans here was possibly the biggest experiment in coercion and brainwashing ever performed on a group of people. We cut the Native American kids' hair and sent them to Indian school and took away their language. Jeez. How violent can it get? We invented the idea of "Americanization," in which the openly embraced aim was to change immigrant consciousness--not by force, but decisively and rapidly.

I'm not saying the intention was always bad. But there definitely was always a sense that all this belongs to Us, and we will be the ones to decide just how far and how fast You People will be permitted to go. The panic now is happening because it looks as if we may not be able to maintain that control much longer. My most important point: when it comes to embracing change, WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. Yes, of course it would be ideal if every group had the ability to reduce the rate of change to something they felt comfortable with. Yes, of course valuable things are lost at times of change, and we all feel deep regret. Possibly there are ways to manage the rate of change, or the manner of change within the American community, and if people have any ideas along those lines they are worth discussing. But turning America into one big gated community--with smaller ones inside it--isn't one of them.

Great points Sigaliris. I remember the moment when my husband and I were dating when I realized that if I married him, I could not comfortably live in a nice small town like the one I grew up in. It hit me like a ton of bricks. I had always hated the fact that blacks and other minorities were made to feel unwelcome there, but it was an impersonal kind of annoyance. I was still mostly happy living there, enjoying our "nice" community as long as no one said anything overtly mean or racist. But when I realized that it would be ME, and even more shocking, my beautiful, innocent *children*, who would now be unwelcome it felt totally different. What an eye-opener that was to me as a middle class white kid.

We've been married 12 years now, mostly problem free as far as discrimination is concerned (though good luck finding a racially diverse church!) We did have one incident when we tried to buy a beautiful old farm house outside our small city. It was for sale by owner, and it sure seemed like they didn't want to sell to us. They seemed much more eager when I first looked at the house by myself, but when my husband came with me the second time, they remained polite, but more cool. They refused to negotiate anything, so we didn't feel it was a good deal and didn't buy. We can't know for sure if it was because of race, but it hurt just thinking that could be the case. I suppose they were just trying to preserve the "social capital" and "sense of community" for their neighbors, huh? :o(

A hallmark of US history is the notion that each person must have an Identity, and the fellow members of that Identity all must congregate in a common space. The best example of that are the many "little ethnicities" in varying incarnations all over the country, from the ubiquitous large-urban Chinatowns to the neighborhood enclaves in the smallest towns.

There are always several reasons for these places, but the most common reasons break down into a joined-at-the-hip pairing:

1) The indigenous locals are afraid of the newcomers.
2) The newcomers must protect themselves from the consequences of that fear.

The entire discussion about assimilation comes second to that pair. A fearful American will neither listen to nor care about the most heartfelt expression of desire to become an American fully, in language, custom and culture. Fear is the strongest of all motivators, and the most difficult obstacle to overcome.

Further, an entrenched little ethnicity will encourage their newcomers to expect fear reactions even when they are no longer as numerous -- or even happening at all -- thereby perpetuating the problem from the immigrant side. Indeed, the lack of welcome will translate into a hostile 180-degree turn from enthusiastic assimilation to a hostile bigotry towards the host culture. Who has not heard the story of a youngster wanting desparately to join hir friends in (for them) an ordinary social event, but parental disapproval prevents them? "We did not do that at home" the youngster hears by way of explanation; anyone who has had to deal with a teenager knows how well that sort of arbitrary judgment goes over.

Excellent post, Daniel. I would ask readers to include a second question to those minority co-workers as well: do you want to punish people for overt racism and sexism, or do you simply want it to stop?

I think Rod's point is that the diversity cult encourages a form of segregation, despite the intentions of its defenders; it runs against the original spirit of liberalism, just as neo-con globalism runs against true conservativism.

I'm in the "why is this news?" camp. It's obvious that spontaneous socialization is easier when everyone in the group is similar. This is why college students like to live with college students, families with young children like to live in neighborhoods with lots of similar families, and retired people enjoy "active adult" communities. Note how this says nothing about race, ethnicity, or fear.

Race comes into it because people who differ by race often differ on a whole lot of other dimensions as well -- language, culture, religion, education, musical tastes, and so on. There's no real basis for spontaneous interaction when people have next to nothing in common.

This doesn't mean people are doomed to racial segregation forever, but it does suggest that we need to talk more about areas where people do get along across racial lines. The military has been mentioned, and military life is definitely distinctive enough to serve as a common bond for people who might not have a connection otherwise. I've also seen excellent race relations among musicians who perform the same kind of music and athletes who play the same sport, which to me shows that civilians can also form common identities that cross racial lines. This suggests that downplaying race and playing up the common activity works better than dwelling on what divides people.

Most diversity training I've encountered strikes me as counterproductive for this reason. People who work together often have a lot in common that can be highlighted -- they all chose a certain profession, for example, and that's a huge thing. Focusing on divisions can make people forget that, and I've often seen groups turn prickly after a session that approaches things that way. Also, a lot of diversity training facilitators are just plain bad at their jobs, which pretty much ensures that conflicts will develop.

The one exception to the training rule was a session I attended for Red Cross volunteers. What made it unique was that it covered ALL kinds of difference, including age and class as well as race and gender, and that it didn't assume a single power structure. It began with the assumption that ALL the volunteers, regardless of background, had to be ready to deal with all disaster victims -- again regardless of background. This symmetry was helpful, as was the flexibility that let participants decide which of their own characteristics were most important in defining them. People could choose to "be" their ethnicity one minute, their parental status the next, and so on. And that meant no permanent subgroups could form within the larger group that had come together for a common purpose.

Europe is already finding out that "multiculturalism" is a big lie as they struggle to keep their ultra-conservative Muslim immigrants from killing/attacking the indigenous infidels, prostitues, Jews and gays. The die is already cast; Europe will explode in a very bloody civil war in 10 or 15 years and 10s of thousands of people will die. And it will all be the fault, in large part, of the fanatical "multiculturalists" who preached that ultra-conservative Muslims from small underdeveloped villages in Bangladesh or Morrocco could live side-by-side happily with non-religious First World hedonists who believe in gay marriage and letting their women go topless on the beach, if only they just practiced "mutual respect" and "celebrated their differences".

We social conservatives knew this already five years or 10 years ago; it's a laugh that a fancy Hahvad big-shot is just now figuring it all out. When the blood starts to flow in Europe the mindless fanatics who thought that "multiculturalism" was the new great hope for utopian nirvana, will look as stupid and clueless as their predecessors looked when the Berlin Wall came down and the Great Soviet Worker's Paradise was revealed to be basically an impoverished Third World country.

I just kind of wish that Putnam could be airlifted into the middle of Europe in 10 years and forced to soak up all the "enrichment" as Paris turns into Lebanon and England into Sarajevo.