Master Po and young Kwai Chang Caine are walking along a winding path through the mountains outside the monastery. After a long period of silent moving meditation, Kwai Chang asks the master:
KC: Don’t you think we should have more diversity in our government, Master Po?
PO: What do you mean, young man?
KC: Well, they say that diversity is our greatest strength, so shouldn’t we have more diversity to make ourselves even stronger?
PO: Why do you think that diversity is our greatest strength?
KC: Well, because everybody says so, and… [looks nervously at Master Po, expecting another whack from the staff Po carries with him]
PO: Yes, I understand that many people say so. Does that make it true?
KC: Well, uh, … but …
PO: Suppose that we have a diverse army with statistically perfect representation of transgenders, gays, people of color, transparent people, ugly people, pretty people, tall people, short people, fat people, happy people and sad people — but have no tanks or planes or ships at our disposal. Are we stronger than we would be without such diversity, but with plenty of tanks, planes and ships?
KC: Hmmm…. I guess that shows rather clearly the absurdity of the claim that “diversity is our greatest strength” all right. But isn’t diversity good?
PO: How shall we explore such a question? Let us try a thought experiment with a simple test case.
KC: That seems reasonable, Master Po. Yes, please continue.
PO: Suppose we have a requirement for diversity of some attribute, let’s say skin color, in some group we are forming.
KC: What sort of group?
PO: It matters not — it could be an army, a corporation, a jury, a board of directors, or a committee; in fact, let’s use a committee for this example. Let us further suppose that 1/10 of the available population is of color X and 9/10 of the population is of color Y. We need 10 members on our committee.
KC: Ok, I see that makes the arithmetic simple, right?
PO: Yes. Now suppose that by some fair (that is, unbiased) process based only on merit we have chosen 9 members of the committee, and they all happen to be of color Y. A hard requirement for diversity would force us to choose a member of the X-colored population for the 10th member, right?
KC: Yes, Master. That is simple arithmetic!
PO: Now suppose (as it may well happen) that by a fluke of randomness in the distribution of merit, the best person of color X is not nearly as qualified as many of the potential candidates of color Y. What then should we do?
KC: Well, you know, diversity is good, so … we should choose the less-qualified candidate of color X, shouldn’t we?
PO: But using the diversity criterion here obviously leads to a less-than-optimal committee. We clearly have better qualified candidates available, yet choose a less qualified one. How can that be considered “good?”
KC: Uh, well, … hmmm…. maybe…
PO: And what about Martin Luther King’s famous dream, that people would “…not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Isn’t choosing someone by skin color to satisfy “diversity” breaking that dream?
KC: Well, I suppose so…
PO: No, you know so, don’t you? And how about the as-yet unchosen but well-qualified candidates of color Y who are better qualified the best candidate of color X? Is it fair to them to say “tough luck — you’re the wrong color?”
KC: OK, your logic is sound. But what about the need for diversity? Shouldn’t we all be equal, and thus equally represented statistically?
PO: [carefully considering using his staff…] Those two concepts are orthogonal — they have nothing to do with each other. A random distribution is just that — random — and it has nothing to do with “equality” of particular outcomes. Flip a coin 10 times, and it is unlikely that you will get exactly 5 heads and 5 tails. Try it!
KC: [stops to dig a coin out of his pocket…]
PO: [deftly swings his staff around behind himself to smack Kwai Chang smartly on the rear end]
KC: Ouch!!!
PO: Do that on your own time, Grasshopper. We have things to discuss! Now back to the subject. Do you truly believe that enforcing diversity would make the committee better? If so, in what way?
KC: Well, for starters, it would be more diverse … [Master Po starts to swing his staff again..] NO! Wait! OK — sorry… never mind that. [Master Po places the end of his staff back on the ground.]
PO: Very well. So much for diversity. Diversity is good for investment portfolios, and sometimes for wine collections, department store offerings and art galleries. But you must understand the goal for which “diversity” is being used as a selection criterion.
KC: Huh?
PO: Equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of outcome, Grasshopper, and guaranteed equality of outcome would absolutely require that some people be treated unfairly!
KC: But… but… shouldn’t the committee be composed of 1 member of color X and 9 members of color Y?
PO: [sighing with exasperation] Why?
KC: Because it’s more diverse!
PO: Did we not just prove that in this instance a more “diverse” committee would be a poorer choice, and that if we chose to follow “diversity” here we would be discriminating against many qualified candidates of color Y simply because of the color of their skin?
KC: But wait a minute, Master Po! Surely we should do something like “affirmative action” in such cases, because the people of color X were treated badly many years ago!
PO: Ah, Grasshopper! Have not people of colors Y, W, Z and Q also been treated badly though the ages? Of course they have! Do you think that by punishing people now who had nothing to do with that, you will right a great wrong? How does that work?
KC: Uh, … hmm… when you put it like that, it does sound kind of silly, doesn’t it?
Master Po: It doesn’t just sound silly, it is silly!
KC: Ah, now I see it clearly! Thank you, Master Po. I’ll continue to meditate on this.
[Master Po and Kwai Chang continue walking. Master Po begins to plan his next discussion with the young man — this time about statistics and probability distributions. Or maybe something about prison populations and football teams….]