Carlos1
Advisors, Authors A-H

Renewing Diversity Part 18: Considering the Diversity Principle – by Carlos Cortés

For the 2025 ADR issue on economics I wrote about three colleagues – R. Roosevelt Thomas, Louise Wilkinson, and Marc Brenman — who, in different ways, influenced my thinking about diversity and economics.  Now let me add one more influencer, someone whom I have never met: David B. Oppenheimer.  I just read and reviewed his new book, The Diversity Principle: The Story of a Transformative Idea, for the Journal of Hate Studies.  .

At first glance, Oppenheimer’s basic thesis seems simple.  He proposes and defines the diversity principle as follows:  “the idea that diversity contributes to better learning and teaching, better thinking, better science, better business practices, and better democratic engagement  (p.4).”   In support of his thesis, he presents a historical narrative that incorporates the ideas of Wilhelm von Humboldt (head of the Prussian Ministry of Education), the contributions of John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor Mill, and South African scholarship supporting diversity admissions at the University of Cape Town.  He then links these foreign influences to the development of American jurisprudence and institutions, mainly academic. 

As Oppenheimer’s narrative develops, so does the idea of diversity.  He argues that human differences writ large are themselves the essence of diversity and, therefore, the basis of the diversity principle.  Over time, however, diversity takes on different shapes and hues.  

For example, in defense of his argument for the long-term resonance of the idea of diversity, he quotes Wilbur Bender, Harvard dean of admissions and financial aid from 1952 to 1960.  Bender injects diversity into the discussion of Harvard’s future by championing “a student body deliberately selected with this range of ability to include a variety of personalities, talents, backgrounds and career goals (page 102).”   Admittedly, this is a far cry from the idea of diversity that emerged in the 1970’s built around still-ongoing efforts to rectify injustices suffered by historically marginalized social groups and to create a more equitable and inclusive society.  However, Oppenheimer uses such varying examples to support his thesis of the long-term trajectory of the diversity principle.  

In support of his thesis of historical continuity, Oppenheimer ultimately turns to the idea of “the business case for diversity,” which I discussed in last year’s column.  The business case, as explained by Oppenheimer, is the proposition that diversity pays off for organizations in profits, vision-building, effective decision making, personal development, cognitive complexity, and institutional strength.  But does it?

The business case for diversity has been subjected to criticism from different directions.  For example, some conservative critics have dismissed the business case as ideological conjecture unsupported by solid evidence.  In contrast, some diversity advocates have expressed concern that making diversity a “bottom line” goal distracts from and can even undermine the pursuit of equity, inclusivity, and social justice.   

To buttress his case, Oppenheimer introduces another concept, “diversity science.”  He argues that a cluster of social scientists has developed a robust scholarship that “proves” the effectiveness of the business case.  I am no expert in “diversity science” scholarship.  Over the years I have read a smattering of articles that fall within that category, but at 92 I don’t plan to drop my various projects to do a deep dive into diversity science.  For now I’ll just note that the field is there.

Here’s my hunch . . . and I admit that it’s a hunch based on experience and observation, not empirical study.  Diversity has been a strength in some organizations and efforts, including those that fall within the framework of the business case.  However, there are organizational and institutional situations in which diversity does not prove to be a strength but sometimes a distraction and an obstruction.  As we struggle to renew the diversity movement, we need to move away from defending our positions through truisms about how diversity is an unqualified strength and recognize ongoing complexities.

But there is something else.  We should be delighted with the very existence of a scholarly cohort dedicated to “diversity science” in support of the “business case.”  Their very presence provides a degree of scholarly evidence often lacking in arguments championing diversity efforts.  For decades diversity advocates have relied too much on slogans like “I believe in diversity” and “Our strength is our diversity” (which emblazons one of my T-shirts).  We have depended too much on argument by anecdote, as much as that pains me to say as a historian who loves the richness of anecdotes.  

It is promising when scholars pursue harder evidence, such as empirical investigations of the business case proposition.  I don’t know how well diversity science efforts will hold up in the long run to critical scrutiny or how effective they will be in the hyper-polarized marketplace of insults and spurious claims.  However, the very fact that these efforts exist is a hopeful sign for diversity renewal.

Moreover, they provide further evidence that the diversity movement is not dead by any means.  The movement is going through rocky times.  However, as long as diversity supporters refuse to buckle and don’t go into hiding in self-perpetuating echo chambers, they can re-energize the movement by reclaiming their public voice.  A careful, analytical reconsideration of the business case proposition should be part of that renewal.

Dr. Carlos E. Cortés
Latest posts by Dr. Carlos E. Cortés (see all)