“Diversity is our greatest strength!”

The mainstream media, our politicians, our educators, and even our military officers keep repeating this catch-phrase. They repeat it more forcefully and frequently with each passing year.

Well…is it? What does the research show? What are the benefits? Does it make us happier, wealthier, or safer?

• Does “diversity” make us happier?

Professor Robert Putnam, a respected and accomplished researcher dared to ask this question with a comprehensive study. His results were so startling to his liberal sensibilities that he actually hid his research data for five years before resolving to publish it, anyway. His bestselling book describing his results is entitled Bowling Alone. The title sums it up.

Here’s a sampling of his findings…

In areas of greater diversity, our respondents demonstrate:

• Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.
• Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in their own influence.
• Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
• Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).
• Less likelihood of working on a community project.
• Lower likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.
• Fewer close friends and confidants.
• Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.
• More time spent watching television and more agreement that ‘television is my most important form of entertainment.

People feel out of place in communities where they are out of place. People have trouble feeling like they belong to a group when they’re not part of any group. People have trouble communicating with people who not only share little in common, but often don’t even speak the same language. Lord knows how much money and time they wasted to prove scientifically that diversity makes us less happy – but there you have it.

• Does “diversity” make us wealthier?

Even in the business world, where the “diversity craze” first took root, people are questioning its validity. In 2003 Professor Thomas A. Kochan did a study entitled: The Effects of Diversity on Business Performance: Report of the Diversity Research Network (You can download the PDF here.) It was a five year study looking to answer the questions as to whether a diverse workforce or repeated diversity training sessions do anything to improve corporate performance, or to create a more harmonious work force. Again, the news was far from good for diversity-philes…

“The diversity industry is built on sand. The business case rhetoric for diversity is simply naïve and overdone. There are no strong positive or negative effects of gender or racial diversity on business performance.” *snip*

“Organizations appoint diversity officers. They hire diversity consultants, coaches, and trainers. They adopt diversity scorecards, benchmarks, and best practices, and send executives to diversity conferences and leadership academies.”

However…

“One item is in very short supply: hard metrics for measuring performance results or the return on diversity spending.”

Unfounded assertions about the strength of diversity have even been amusingly waved like a white flag of desperation on a sinking economic ship:

In its final press release the day before it went bankrupt in 2008, the huge banking conglomerate Washington Mutual boasted about coming in sixth in Hispanic Business’s annual Diversity Elite list. “Diversity is an integral part of cultivating a welcoming, innovative and dynamic workplace here at WaMu,” said president Steve Rotella.

But even without observable evidence to back up these endless claims that diversity is a good thing, you may wonder What’s the big deal? What’s the harm in promoting diversity?  What could possibly go wrong?

• Does “diversity” make us safer?

On November 5th, 2009, Amry Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a radical Muslim of Palestinian descent, went on a rampage at Fort Hood, killing 13 soldiers and wounding 30 others. Hasan was a devout Muslim who had likened suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to protect their comrades.  He had been flagged by federal investigators for postings he had made on the internet.  He was known to have tried to communicate with al-Qaeda, and intelligence agencies had intercepted at least 18 pieces of email correspondence between Hasan and known terrorist leader Anwar al-Awlaki.

Hasan’s Army superiors were made aware of these alarming facts, yet decided against protecting innocent people from the threat they knew he posed.  But why would they ignore these obvious signs?

“[They] did not act in part because they valued the rare diversity of having a Muslim psychiatrist.

And…

In searching for explanations for why superiors did not move to revoke Hasan’s security clearances or expel him from the Army, the report portrays colleagues and superiors as possibly reluctant to lose one of the Army’s few Muslim mental health specialists. The report concludes that because the Army had attracted only one Muslim psychiatrist in addition to Hasan since 2001, “it is possible some were afraid” of losing such diversity “and thus were willing to overlook Hasan’s deficiencies as an officer.”

General George Casey, the Army’s highest-ranking officer, responded on CNN shortly after the tragic terrorist attack that, “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.” General Casey deserves to be commended for his honesty, in explicitly admitting that he cares more about diversity than anything, including his troops.

Not to be outdone, the Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Gary Roughead, recently announced in Annapolis that diversity is not just an undeniable strength, but that:

“diversity is the number one priority” at the Naval Academy.”

In a sign of the times, even Mount Airy, North Carolina, the inspiration for the mythical town of Mayberry on the Andy Griffith Show, was recently the scene of a horrific quadruple homicide courtesy of its newfound diversity of Mexican criminals. Americans have almost forgotten that Detroit was once one of America’s safest and wealthiest cities – back before it became diverse.

And diversity doesn’t just leave more of us vulnerable to people who would hurt or kill us. It also makes it less likely that you’ll be saved from a burning building…

In 2006, the new Chicago hiring test passed all but the bottom 15 percent of the folks who walked in off the street wanting jobs as firefighters. And then, just as Bazelon recommends for New Haven, the Chicago city government picked “randomly” from the top 85 percent—the crème de la crème of the Disparate Impact Age. *snip*

There’s a reason you don’t see much in the newspapers about cities hiring firefighters by lottery: this method is terrifying to anybody who might someday be trapped in a burning building. So politicians don’t explain too vividly to the public what exactly they are up to. *snip*

But, seriously, what’s the point of even giving a test so easy that 96 percent of white people can pass? White people aren’t so smart that somebody at the 5th percentile of the white bell curve is going to make an adequate firefighter.

Bazelon’s lotteries are an incredibly stupid idea because cities end up hiring incredibly stupid people of all races. My own opinion is that, before matters come to this absurd pass, citizens would be much safer if fire departments gave up and used explicit racial quotas. Then at least fire departments could hire the top-scoring firefighters from within each race.

The same situation has occurred in both New Haven, Conn. and New York.  Answer this question:  if your house was on fire, would you prefer the best candidate the fire department could find, or the candidate hired as a political appeasement for the self-appointed Diversity Police?

• Is Diversity a Strength? You Decide.

We at Hoosier Nation agree with the late British parliamentarian Enoch Powell that we’re long overdue for a serious conservation about race, diversity, and immigration.

[Enoch Powell Youtube Documentary]

Do you agree? Do you disagree? Join the serious conversation. Tell us what you think in the comment form below, even if you disagree with us.

However, if you agree with us that unlimited immigration, government social engineering schemes, and the assault on our traditional American communities and our way of life must be stopped, then join the Council of Conservative Citizens today. We at the Hoosier Nation chapter of the CofCC are Indiana’s only conservative organization that’s serious about defending our heritage and unafraid of the politically correct establishment.