Hempy McNoodle
Well-known member
MSN
www.msn.com
Jamil Jivani: Clarence Thomas asks a question too many Canadians are afraid to
Opinion by Jamil Jivani - Yesterday 1:11 pmJustice Clarence Thomas is not known for being vocal when the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments. He is typically reserved and quiet. But, during Monday’s arguments on the merits of affirmative action, Justice Thomas asked one of the most important questions facing Americans and Canadians alike.
What does “diversity” really mean?
Thomas posed the question to the solicitor general of North Carolina, Ryan Park, who argued to the court that affirmative action is beneficial because it creates diversity. In response, Thomas stated, “I’ve heard the word ‘diversity’ quite a few times, and I don’t have a clue what it means. It seems to mean everything for everyone.”
The judge made a crucial point, because there truly are competing definitions of “diversity.” Ironically, far too many institutions use the term without acknowledging such differences. Diversity is used like a buzzword, alongside equity and inclusion, and interpreting its meaning is often left to the eye of the beholder.
In response to Thomas, the solicitor general offered a more substantive definition than you’d typically find in corporate human resource policies or even most universities. “We define diversity the way this court has in this court’s precedents, which means a broadly diverse set of criteria that extends to all different backgrounds and perspectives and not solely limited to race.”
Park also explained some of the specific markers of diversity valued by the University of North Carolina. “There are many diversity factors that are considered as a greater factor in our admissions process than race. We have a particular interest in recruiting and enrolling rural North Carolinians … One out of every 12 students is — has a military affiliation, including the most veterans on campus since World War II. And so we value diversity of all different kinds in all the ways that people differ in our society.”
Still, Thomas was unimpressed. And his skepticism may be the result of his own career proving that when many institutions say they value different backgrounds and perspectives, they tend to mean they value different backgrounds and perspectives that serve a liberal political agenda.
Thomas is the longest-serving Black judge to ever serve on the highest court in the U.S. He is also the only Black man on the court. And yet, he is rarely if ever celebrated by mainstream media corporations for the “diversity” he brings to the job.
At one point, ABC’s Good Morning America seemed to have forgotten that Thomas existed, declaring Ketanji Brown Jackson “the first Black Supreme Court justice in U.S. history.” Last year, the Globe and Mail published a racial slur against Thomas as if it were a normal criticism to make of a judge. One of the more outrageous slights against Thomas occurred when the Smithsonian opened up a National Museum of African American History and Culture and completely excluded him from their presentation of Black history.
Thomas is not celebrated for the “diversity” trailblazer that he is. It’s obvious why he is skeptical of institutions that throw the word around so casually.
Surely, decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court don’t impact Canadian laws. But the cultural issues at play in this case resonate on our side of the border, since many Canadian institutions have chosen to import American race relations into our country. There’s something valuable for Canadians to glean from Justice Thomas’s efforts.
If more Canadians were willing to ask the question posed by Thomas, our institutions might arrive at a more sincere and helpful definition of diversity. If, by “diversity,” a government office, business or school means people who look differently from one another but share the same liberal worldview, then they should say so. But, if institutions want to contend with the concerns raised by Thomas and others, they should also be celebrated for embracing a sense of “diversity” that is substantive and genuine.
Monday’s oral arguments eventually touched on the key issue. Solicitor General Park cited a study about stock trading that argued diversity “reduces group think and people have longer and more sustained disagreement, and that leads to a more efficient outcome.” Thomas responded, “Well, I guess I don’t put much stock in that because I’ve heard similar arguments in favour of segregation, too.”
Superficial approaches to “diversity” can easily resemble segregation by seeking to categorize and organize people based solely on differences that are skin-deep. Only a thoughtful approach that values the diversity of thought that flows from other types of diversity can achieve what even the most ardent proponents of diversity claim to value.
National Post
