October 21, 2003
Taking a fresh look at diversity
From my seat in the IMAX theatre, bespectacled in yellow plastic 3D glasses, I listened as an astronaut observed that from space you can see no boundaries on earth. If there are no boundaries, he mused, why could we not all get along as members of one big human family?
While the setting may have changed dramatically, the question has remained constant since the dawn of recorded history. Humankind has always found ways to draw lines and make distinctions among groups of people. And in spite of the efforts of history’s greatest minds, the goal of harmony remains elusive.
But mankind also has a deeply ingrained sense of right and wrong. Successful societies have, through struggle and intentional effort, embraced the idea that we can value, indeed celebrate, those things that make us different. But those examples have been far too rare, and strife all too common.
The battleground we now call “diversity” finds its roots in the battle between freedom and aristocracy. The aristocrat, believing himself more gifted by birth, assumes the role of benevolent dictator. Having been so blessed, he feels a certain responsibility or guilt to help those he views as less capable. In past societies that paternal model manifested itself in monarchy, feudalism, or even slavery. The modern corporate “diversity” program is only the latest manifestation of a tired social elitism. While no one can fault the intentions of corporate “diversity” efforts, the strategy of creating racial harmony through institutional coercion has created little lasting change.
By contrast, the basic unit of the free society is the capable, responsible individual guided by an ethical inner compass. Free societies stand in awe of the potential and power of every individual regardless of labels. Free societies seek to create a culture in which any person from any background can fulfill his or her potential. The person who chooses to build bridges across race or gender boundaries in his or her sphere views people as individuals rather than elements of a particular group. We build relationships interpersonally, and reconcile them the same way. Group labels are the problem, not the solution.
I would argue that every individual has amazing potential. Every day, people with physical or mental handicaps choose not to use those challenges as an excuse to play the victim, but rather as an impetus to apply themselves all the more. In doing so, the so-called “disabled” person uses more of his or her potential, and contributes more to society, than ten “whole” people who only use a fraction of their potential.
Group identities are nothing more than generalizations. Within any identifiable group exists a wide range of talents and abilities. We can no more claim success simply by identifying with a “successful” group than blame failure on a “disadvantaged” group identity. But, paradoxically, individuals from “successful” groups are more likely to succeed than those from “disadvantaged” groups. The problem is not that genetics or upbringing hold us back in life, but that we THINK these things hold us back in life. In actuality, genetic makeup and life experiences can only hold us back if we decide, today, to use those things as an excuse not to try.
Where I begin in life is completely beyond my control. My great-grandfather came to this country with
nothing but wits, determination, and optimism. Though he experienced ethnic discrimination in
Where I am today reflects a combination of genetics, upbringing, and life choices. If I use even a fraction of my innate potential I can accomplish something extraordinary. I can do nothing about my genetics or upbringing. All I can do is make choices in each present moment about what to do with what I have been given. And if I want to change things, I need to start with myself.
Syndicated columnist Gene C. Mage is author of the book Managing for High Performance. Visit www.makingitwork.com
for the complete column archive.