Think Piece on Diversity

Daniel Kennedy

ADMPS 3003

November 17, 1998

________________________________________________________________________

We are constantly attempting to categorize any type of stimuli we receive. This includes not only issues of how we sift information, but also how we ‘lump’ groups together by what we think we know about them (as a group) when we don’t have enough information to make any rational decisions. How I view myself is by nature a categorization of how I reference myself to others. These others are not only members of other races or religions, but also in and between members of my own family. We also struggle, particularly in the modern age, with the notion of the commonality of man at the same time trying to maintain our own individuality. How can we combine the two to move toward a world where we are able to accept people for themselves and not as types, genders or races? If I feel I am trying to be as inclusive as possible, what are the barriers to my becoming truly neutral? What are the expectations of my fellow man and myself? Many of us believe we are operating as inclusively as possible, but is it true that the act of forcing inclusion makes us none truly neutral? The articles attempt to address a slightly different aspects of this categorization process and their possible implications. The inferred implications are generalizable to the entire population and there are issues raised which are important to consider as this ‘shaping’ or comparison process occurs.

Two of the articles are similar in their themes of how our ‘knowledge base’ awareness inspires our observations and how we use that to provide focus for our perceptions. Goodman (1996) in relating the issue of how our western-centric attitudes often don’t account for differences we encounter in the true population of the globe and Sleeter (1993) related to issues of how conflicts in the attempt to find balance are denied. I use the word awareness because in the case of the Sleeter article, the implications of non engagement in the ‘program’ was that those who didn’t become involved were de-facto not engaged in the issue and consequently were in denial of race as an issue. Yet isn’t the ultimate purpose of raising the awareness to ultimately negate the issue of race? As I mentioned earlier, we are each attempting to find a balance between our understanding (and professed belief in many instances) that we are all equal, yet at the same time make efforts (rightly or wrongly) to make some ‘more equal’. In attempting to provide insight into how some teachers may attempt to categorize their view of race, Sleeter (1993) makes some rather generalized assumptions (based on the size of those participating) about the nature of teachers who are not willing to actively participate in her studygroups. I believe however, the core issue is more related to being open to understanding that change takes time, and occurs differently for each individual. While the teachers may have indicated that race was not important, by the very fact there was discussion on race it was important (Sleeter, p.161). Eurocentric or Amerocentric instructional methods to solving problems often by default assume that other cultures don’t have the capacity to design their own solutions. We also tend to discount the ability and are surprised by different approaches to problem solving that don’t fall within our own arena of understanding. As Goodman writes:

"...the issues posed by foreign students often disrupts neatly planned lectures

and syllabi and force mid-year course corrections (1996)".

Indicating that perceptive instructors realize and account for the benefit of inclusionary approaches to instruction. Both of these articles deal with issues related to how the ‘seen’ is taken as the ‘understood’. Both address issues of self-exploration, by the educators (and by implication, possibly transferrable to the general population) of how begin to take steps to identify areas where considerable work needs to be done.

At the same time, each of us attempts to find our own measure of ‘truth’ in how we attach value or meaning to the stimuli we receive. As addressed in the Altenbaugh article (1995), the rules are in a constant state of flux. In this particular article we see again the issue of self interest as an issue that is very basic to the problem of diversity. A minority group (in this case females) is permitted to achieve some level of success (and are praised for it) until it poses a problem for the majority. Then some of the very traits initially described as desirable are turned against the minority group. Interestingly enough, these are not new issues. We have seen time and again situations where others are expected to walk the same path as ourselves, yet unable to because the understanding of the path is different.

It is in our awareness of ourselves and in our expectations of how we truly believe the world ought to be that should frame our reference. If we really believe that all are created equal our awareness should be congruent to our belie. Unfortunately, for each of us we find that inconsistency between belief and awareness to be our major stumbling block.