Diversity: The Only Meaningful Kind is Philosophical

Many organizations and committees and commissions claim to celebrate diversity. They have members from various ages and geographical areas. They have men and women (and other genders). They have old, young, blacks, browns, whites (albeit not so important today to have white males) and lesbians, gays, transgenders, bisexuals, etc. The only diverse quality that none of them ever advertise for is philosophical. This is a tragedy because philosophical diversity is the only meaningful diversity, especially if you want some diverse ideas. After all, not only do the other categories of diversity not necessarily possess a variety of views but it should be insulting to a black person or a gay person, for example, to assume of that they have certain opinions on any subject. They should be respected as individuals.

This problem is especially evident in governmental boards and commissions. I have served on several of these and I am always frustrated by the lack of philosophical diversity. The members do come from all the various groups mentioned above but they all seem to all favor more government and, therefore, become a rubber stamp for the governmental entity that appointed them. For example, bond committees always want more government bonds. They never oppose government spending; they just want to make sure the money is spent on their pet project. The same is true for transportation committees that I have served on recently. Members tend to support liberal spending plans for outmoded and inefficient systems that benefit from central planning (like Light Rail) because they are appointed by government officials who (mostly) want to spend more government money and spend it in ways that most conservatives would not favor.

Therefore, if you truly want diverse views on any of these boards/commissions/committees, you must ask for people who have diverse views and that can only be done by asking about philosophical orientation.