Is diversity a proper objective
Debate Rounds (3)
The elite, both of the leftist intelligentsia at universities and the political Elite use the subterfuge provided by their skills with semantics to advance their real goals of domination over the citizens lives.
No avenue that might further the statist's objectives of complete domination by government bureaucrats is overlooked from indoctrinating America's youth in "political correct" attitudes, as determined by statists, to imposing their doctrinaire of diversity upon all citizens. But in a article that appeared in the Boston Globe titled, " The downside of diversity " ...By Michael Jonas | August 5, 2007... diversity proved to not be so beneficial as was claimed by statist elites.
In the article<" A Harvard political scientist finds that diversity hurts civic life. What happens when a liberal scholar unearths an inconvenient truth?"
"IT HAS BECOME increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.
But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. ]
Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for ["Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, [neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. ]
The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.
"The extent of the effect is shocking," says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.
"The study comes at a time when the future of the American melting pot is the focus of intense political debate, from immigration to race-based admissions to schools..."
The claims as to the benefits of diversity upon the American citizens has proven to be a detriment to unifying them and causing them instead to separate from each other. The effects of diversity, as reported by this Harvard professor, has brought about a disunited, United States, and a citizenry that distrusts each other, hardly a worthy benefit of enforced diversity.
An objective can be considered proper if there are benefits to said objective. Therefore I, as the pro, should have the burden of proving that there are benefits to diversity. If I can do so, then I have one the debate.
I will begin by rebutting my opponent's only contention and then go on to add a few of my own.
My opponent's contention is essentially that diversity decreases civic participation. He does not provide a warrant or explanation for why this effect occurs and merely relies on the correlation from one study to support his assertion. He does not provide a source, but I found his Boston Globe article and find (4) main issues with this contention:
1. Outdated Findings
The study's data was taken in 2001, and the article was only published in 2007. In 2001, only 4% of US senators publicly supported gay marriage, but today, 50% do (NY Times). What we can take from this is that today, in general, people are differences are much more acceptable than they were when the findings of this study occurred. Therefore it is reasonable to say that these findings are no longer relevant.
2. Correlation =/= Causation
The first issue with this study is that it does not necessarily represent an effect of diversity itself. The same article which my opponent cites admit that "diverse communities tended to be larger, have greater income ranges, higher crime rates, and more mobility among their residents," each of which make the impact of the study lower and lower if they are accounted for. A much more logical explanation for the difference is the idea that low-income areas have lower civic participation and are also more likely to be diverse.
Even if this is not the correct explanatory variable, my opponent gives us no reason to assume causation. The study does not include and causal statistical analysis and therefore the argument does not prove anything.
3. Does not Negate Long-Term Benefits
Even if my opponent wins this contention, he does not win the debate. There are many benefits to diversity and the diversity of American society has already decreased xenophobia in this country, especially as compared to racially homogeneous countries such as Japan. If we continue to promote diversity it is likely that the effects of the study will fade away.
4. No Real Impact
The study does not prove that promoting diversity is bad. In fact, the creator of the study, Robert Putnam, is still an avid promoter of social diversity.
1. Diversity Improves Problem-Solving
Diversity means multiple points of view and a better chance to solve complex problems. Networks which are multicultural have higher rates of creativity (Harvard Business School). In addition, a study found that problem solvers from different backgrounds were more effective than teams of talented problem solvers (Professors from UMichigan and Loyola).
2. Economic Benefits
Improved problem-solving leads directly to economic benefits. Workforce diversity is one of the most important causes of innovation and businesses growth (Forbes). Furthermore, when businesses have executive boards which are more diverse, they have higher profits (McKinsey).
3. Political Benefits
A study from the University of Michigan in 2003 (after 2001) finds that participating in activities with people of other races leads to increased understanding of democratic citizenship and higher civic participation. This makes intuitive sense because interacting with people from other backgrounds should lead to increased exposure to many types of knowledge.
Good luck Lookingatissues.
Thanks for entering into the debate on the topic of diversity. The term," diversity," is really a handy catch-all term that is a conglomeration of such terms as multiculturalism, political correctness,Affirmative Action,racial preferences etc, etc, that is used by the elite leftist at Universities and in the government to confuse the general public.
Robert H. Bork in his book, " SLOUTCHING TOWARDS GOMORRAH," wrote "...of late educators have begun to speak of "diversity," instead of " multiculturalism,"but it is the same thing." "...University presidents and faculties, secondary and primary school principles and teachers, all chant the "diversity" mantra...."
Diversity is touted by the leftist elite professors and other leftist intellectuals as a way to unite the different races together and promote a better appreciation of other races, and to bring the different ethnic groups together as one under the banner of all being Americans.
The elite, by pushing diversity as a common good, have been able to put the policy of "diversity" in place, but diversity, and their other oratorical pontifications haven't proven to be the panacea promised by the learned leftist elites dwelling in their ivery towers.
Notwithstanding all the grandiose claims about diversity and multiculuralism being the solution as to how to bring the different races together and promoting a better appreciation for each other, the opposite from what had been promised has resulted and divisiveness between the ethnic races has been the results of this grand experiment.
".... The student who immerses himself in multicultural studies, who lives in a dormitory where admission is defined by ethnicity, who socializes only with members of his ethnic group, does not acquire the knowledge and discipline that he might have and does not learn how to deal comfortably with those of other ethnicities ." Diversity hasn't brought about a blending of the races but has cause an even greater divide among them. When one ethnic group of Americans are taught to expect and deserve special considerations over other races, that they have been oppressed by the other race living together in a nation which the two of them occupy there can be nothing but disharmony between them and all of the fancy words won't solve the problems of that nation.
1. Summary of the debate so far
2. Rebuttal of my opponent's points from the 2nd round
3. Voting Issues
In the first round, my opponent provided (1) contention, which was supported by (1) piece of evidence, and no logical explanation:
1. Diversity decreases civic participation
I responded with (4) rebuttals to his point:
A. Outdated Findings
B. Correlation =/= Causation
C. Does not Negate Long-Term Benefits
D. No Real Impact
and I added (3) Pro Contentions of my own:
1. Diversity Improves Problem Solving (2 studies to support):
2. Economic Benefits (2 studies to support):
3. Political Benefits (1 study to support):
The Con did not respond to ANY of my points in his 2nd round. He has dropped his only contention, and you can extend all of mine to the final round. That means at this point in the debate you have 4 + 3 = 7 reasons to vote Pro, and 0 reasons to vote Con. The last round is too late for my opponent to attempt to rebut my points for the first time, or to reaffirm his dropped contention, so no matter what he does in the last round, you should be voting Pro.
In the 2nd round, what my opponent did do was start by attempting to define the term diversity. He wanted to equate diversity with programs such as affirmative action or political correctness. I have (3) responses to his definition:
It's totally abusive for my opponent to attempt to put forth a framework for the debate after I have already started debating it, especially one which goes against the common conception of diversity. Affirmative action is once specific way of achieving diversity,m but it has nothing to do with whether diversity itself is good. Likewise, political correctness has nothing to do with diversity at all. Because his framework is so abusive, you have an (8)th reason to vote Pro.
2. No reason to believe it:
My opponent provides no source, for his definition; he's really just making up something which is convenient for him.
3. His own evidence contradicts him.
Conventional wisdom on what diversity is indicates it is akin to multiculturalism. In fact, my opponent quotes Robert H. Bork who says that diversity and multiculturalism are the same, NOT that diversity is a catch all term that applies to affirmative action or political correctness, or anything besides multiculturalism.
With the knowledge that he has not sufficiently established a credible definition for diversity, my opponent should remember that it would be absolutely ludicrous for him to attempt to establish a framework in the last round, and leave the definition to Merriam Webster's which says that diversity is, "the state of having people who are different races or who have different cultures in a group or organization."
Now lets go to the second thing my opponent did, which was try to create a new contention that diversity somehow increases racial tension. There are (3) fundamental issues with this contention:
1. Lacks common sense:
On the face of it, it just doesn't make sense that diversity would increase racial divides. This is because allowing people with differences to interact with each other makes these differences less significant.
2. It's unsubstantiated:
Most of this point is unsupported ranting about "the elite" and "leftist intellectuals." The only part based on logic or evidence amounts to an unsourced quote which claims that students in diverse environments do not learn how to deal with people of other ethnicities.
3. No impact:
The problem here is that the quote itself says that this only applies to those students in diverse environments who "socializes with only members of his ethic group." of course this is the case. Nowhere in the quote is it implied that diverse environments cause people to not interact with other ethnicities, so diversity does not increase the harms, and there is no impact.
My opponent concludes by claiming that certain groups getting special privileges causes divides, but as I explained, diversity is not the same as affirmative action, so this point falls flat on its face.
As a prelude to the final round, let's go over the flow of the debate on how you should make your vote:
1. Diversity improves problem solving [No Response]
2. Economic Benefits [No Response]
3. Political Benefits [No Response]
1. Diversity decreases civic participation:
response A. Outdated Findings [No Response]
response B. Correlation =/= Causation [No Response]
response C. Does not Negate Long-Term Benefits [No Response]
response D. No Real Impact [No Response]
2. Increases racial tension:
response A. Lacks Common Sense [No Response]
response B. Unsubstantiated [No Response]
response C. No Impact [No Response]
My opponent currently lacks (10) responses, and he has no substantiated a single point in this round. Remember according to my undisputed framework, all I have to do is prove that there are benefits to diversity. Therefore I should win unless my opponent can do both of the following:
1. Rebut all (3) of my contentions
2. Rebut all (3) or (4) of my rebuttals to either one of his contentions
With this in mind I wish good luck to my opponents and urge a PRO vote.
Lookingatissues forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.