Diversity Is Not Our Strength

The Rational Argumentator ^ | April 23, 2003 | William K. Kelly

[G. Stolyarov II]

I like true diversity. I have three engineering degrees from three universities (Virginia Tech, Penn State, and Tennessee Tech). Each has strong research efforts that attract people from all over the world. Working for two oil and chemical companies has also given me the chance to meet all kinds of people from all parts of the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and Europe. I've also met Americans with many different backgrounds. I enjoy meeting different people and learning about their lives.

America has citizens of nearly every race and ethnic or cultural background. Many of them have made great contributions to our nation. We are stronger because they have been productive citizens, and protecting their rights and liberties is best for them and for the country as a whole. They've enriched us materially and culturally.

This diversity is nice, but it doesn't define the strength of our country. In order to maintain our strength, we need to understand it and cultivate it. That strength is defined primarily by three things. They are:

1. The desire and ability to succeed on one's own productivity

A large part of this country's strength is our productivity, and that productivity has resulted from the freedom to work and enjoy the fruit of one's own effort. Everyone has financial goals, and the United States has traditionally been a place where wealth was seen as the fruit of productivity. We didn't become strong as place where people could get rich from crime. Strength hasn't come from being a place where people could get rich off government handouts. Investing is great, but our strength didn't grow from people trying to become rich in the stock market. Some people have become rich through means that were wrong, but generally, the United States has been a nation where people prospered through their own productivity.

The other side of being able to enjoy the fruit of one's productivity is that one must bear the consequences of one's own mistakes and failures. If each individual is not responsible for his failures, then someone else must bear the cost. When others are bearing that cost, they cannot enjoy the fruit of their efforts.

2. The stable, traditional family

Another large part of our nation's success has been the stable, traditional, American family. In this family, the father is the primary breadwinner. The mother sometimes has an outside job but primarily manages the home. Together, they teach the children to do what is right. They teach the kids the right ways to treat other people, and they teach the kids the importance of succeeding on their own productivity. No family has ever been perfect, and many families that seem to fit the model have failed to raise kids who were productive, responsible citizens. However, society is generally strongest when the traditional family is the norm. To repeat what many now admit, Dan Quayle was right.

We live in a society where the stable, traditional family is less common. I advocate the family, but I've also failed to establish a family in my nearly forty years of life. Undoubtedly, many non-traditional families produce great young citizens, and I'm not trying to condemn anyone's situation. On the other hand, I recognize that these situations are not what has made us strong.

3. The Blessings of God

I recognize that one of this nation's greatest strengths has been God's Blessings. I don't go to church, and I'm not advocating for or against church for anyone else. I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do to cultivate this source of our strength. However, in acknowledging our nation's strengths, I must acknowledge this source as well.

These are our strengths. With the opportunity to succeed, strong families, and Providence, we could be a strong and successful nation whether we were all white, all black, or all anything else. Our nation is stronger because we could attract the right people from anywhere, but their ethnic differences weren't their primary contribution to this country. Their primary contribution was their ability to add to our basic strengths.

If we want to remain strong, we must continue what has made us strong. Diversity for the sake of diversity will only weaken our nation. Diversity will be the natural result of welcoming the best people who want to join our nation and contribute to those qualities that truly define our strength. However, failure to recognize diversity as an effect rather than a cause of our strength will only lead to policies that make us weaker.

[G. Stolyarov II]

William K. Kelly is the Chief Editor of the Witness for the Right Conservative Website. Go to http://www.geocities.com/wftright/03/diversity1.html to visit the original article.

[DuncanWaring]

The Balkans have plenty of diversity.

Fat lot of good it does them.

[IronJack]

Anyone who believes there is strength in diversity needs to look closely at an anthill. Or a beehive. Two of nature's strongest community structures, and virtually uniform throughout. It is commonality of purpose that gives them their strength.

[Lorianne]

Item one and two seem to present a potential contradiction. "A large part of this country's strength is our productivity, and that productivity has resulted from the freedom to work and enjoy the fruit of one's own effort. Everyone [does he mean everyone including women?] has financial goals, and the United States has traditionally been a place where wealth was seen as the fruit of productivity.

"Another large part of our nation's success has been the stable, traditional, American family. In this family, the father is the primary breadwinner. The mother sometimes has an outside job but primarily manages the home."

The first sounds like individual freedom (non-prescribed) to determine one's own success and be productive. The second sounds like pre-determined roles (prescribed).

Also, his definition of "wealth" as primary determinant of the fruit of "productivity" seems to exclude the raising of children as a productive occupation.

When "wealth" and "productivity" and success are defined so narrowly, is it any wonder why many people do not place equal value on raising children?

[G. Stolyarov II]

You stated: "Also, his definition of 'wealth' as primary determinant of the fruit of 'productivity' seems to exclude the raising of children as a productive occupation."

I reply: Not necessarily. He states that wealth is seen as a fruit of productivity, as opposed to a mere byproduct of luck or deterministic endowment. This does not exclude other varieties of productivity, including the raising of children. Moreover, the article amply mentions the task of raising children as crucial to the moral and methodical fabric of this country.

You stated: The second sounds like pre-determined roles (prescribed).

I reply: The fact that women in the traditional family can (and I daresay should) pursue outside jobs should be signified, along with my disbelief in your assertion that their role in managing the home is determined. Merely, as the mothers of their children and the persons of greatest emotional proximity to and familiarity with their offspring, they are the most competent in managing the affairs and upbringing of the latter. This is no deterministic supersition but merely a suggestion from the author as to how children can be raised efficiently.

[LiteKeeper]

I fail to see what a purely ethnic mix can promise. It is the skills and talents of the people on a team, in a group, attending a school, that bring strength. Ethnicity itself guarantees NOTHING!

I am so sick of seeing bumper stickers that trumpet "Celebrate Diversity."

[opinionator]

Would you say that God has blessed our country more than he has blessed others?

Could someone please provide an ordered listing of countries based upon how much God has blessed them?

[G. Stolyarov II]

The author's third point is what I consider the weakest in the entire article. You can prod at it all you wish, but the general message of this work remains sound.

[Salman]

I would say that diversity is a beneficial side effect of liberty. The problem arises when diversity is imposed as an end in itself.

[pragmatic_asian]

Has anyone noticed who most often has the most traditional families? Immigrants.

[G. Stolyarov II]

Quite true. I can testify to that from my personal experience, having arrived in this country at the age of nine.

[Lady Eileen]

bump