Why is "diversity" such a great or necessary thing?

Yes I know about teaching, but I said childcare (or any other profession that is massively dominated by females). Teaching does typically have a majority of women, but a large number of men do still go into it so teaching isn't necessarily seen as a 'woman's job' only like some other industries are.

Because it wouldn't be a life worth living. The food would be **** (as english women no longer cook for the most part) the music lumpen, the nightlife dull, there'd be f/a in the way of doctors, taxi drivers (who take the english inebriated home) or NHS staff....

The UK isn't diverse though. Major British cities are diverse, but the vast majority of this country is White British and I don't mind ether way as such, but actually if you look at any media outlet, White people are clearly underrepresented.

Makes you wonder why people are so keen to push the white genocide agenda.

a private company is just that - private. it's part of the private sector, not public. so it isn't socially responsible. only the government is socially responsible. education, too, isn't a natural right - it is a state privilege. and it is purely a means to an end, not an entitlement

racial (positive) discrimination is literally the opposite of meritocracy though - at least if there is any discrimination in the private sector, it's not prevalant and deliberate like from the government

then why would you need a government telling people who to hire when they could learn this lesson themselves via liberty and not coercion...?

Privately-owned companies offer their services to the public, like I said. If you're going to sell to or purchase from the public and hire from the public then expect to be subjected to employment laws.

caviats: I am not saying people shouldn't be allowed to practice their own beliefs and have their own individual identifies (social or biological) - don't interpret me as saying this.
and I know this is quite a long post but I've tried to get right down to the bare bones without any unnecessary rambling

I have been reading a bit about the BBC's "diversity" policy. and it's really made me think: why is diversity even a good thing at all? I've been reading this in terms of race, religion, sexuality, etc; having more gay students, having more muslim employees, having more black people in lucrative fields, etc. but why push for this? is it "diversity" or is it merely tokenism and social window dressing? is it for a good cause that can be logically justified, or is it literally just our authorities wanting to take all these kinds of different people and push them together to say "ahhh, there: that's what I want society to look like" as if society is a toy town to be socially arranged at one's pleasure - isn't that kind of social engineering, or playing god in some sense? if there are people that don't do as well as others (or don't want to) in certain fields, then what good will this do? also, if we're all equal by virtue of our shared humanity, why even care about identity? didn't MLK say "don't judge people by their skin colour but by their characters"? well if you need to look at society with racial (or similar) goggles, surely you are acting upon the belief that races are different to other races? isn't that divisive at its core regardless of your rosey intentions? why teach us that we're different like this? diversity merely seems like a cultural cosmetic treatment - it makes no difference other than the smug satisfaction of the 'engineers' who care about appearances and illusions of total equality (or "equality among difference" - whatever it's meant to be) - it's treating people as if they're nothing but accessories as well -as if all they are is a skin colour or a religion and merely one more ticked box on a quota list - and I would hate to be placed in a box like this if I were a member of a certain minority/ethic identity like these elites do. it's so degrading, surely?

also: let me get on to the factor of religions. religions today are already, clearly, obsolete, but religions specifically make people do and think some very immoral things outside of the general social stability of "don't be a dick". so why is religious diversity good when it's diversity of immoralities? saying diversity is good in a context of islam is like saying "diversity is good" in the context of including racists in a social group for the sake of their "differences", because the vast majority of muslims (in the west or otherwise) hold strictly homophobic beliefs (there was a poll that showed that a majority of muslims even think gays should be put in prison) and hold sentiments against the liberty of speech against the prophet (i.e. advocacy of government censorship or punishments for people defaming muhammad). with the former part of this paragraph in mind, why is diversity and inclusion good when you're including necessarily (in the majority of cases) bad people? surely that makes diversity something that worsens something, not help it, in this sense, when we're talking about a truly "progressive" (I really hate using that word) society of morality and democratic values?

it's easy to say "diversity is good because unity is boring" but in a western context, unity is surely better than diversity in the broadest of senses when we are all united by liberal values, whereas in diversity we are split off from each other and some people will have illiberal or intolerant values in the case of religion? surely if western culture is good, then why is non-diversity bad in the west? and if race doesn't matter anymore, then why is racial diversity so necessary in itself? it all just seems like a dreadful social experiment - it's 2016 where racism or homophobia don't exist predominantly and people are generally very civil and accepting - why push for this when it is just going to give the impression that people in society are racist if you *need* racial quotas, or it's going to seem like society is misogynistic if you *need* gender quotas - these things are just pure paternalism - it makes these identities look incapable compared to everybody else - so it's surely the worst thing you can do?

Why is homogeneity such a good thing?

Homogenous societies tend to be the most stable and peaceful, whilst non-homogenous societies tend to be the most disfunctional (obviously there are exceptions). Have a look at this map. Notice any patterns?



Take Uganda for example, it is officially the most ethnically diverse country in the world. There are over a dozen different ethnic groups that make up the population, no one group has a clear majority, all have their own distinct cultural values, practices, religious beliefs, and at least 40 different languages are spoken. Should be a multicultural paradise right? Wrong, the place is an absolute mess, plagued with ethnic and religious conflict, corruption and is effectively a failed state. And there are numerous other African countries with similarly diverse demographics that suffer from exactly the same problems.

A nation ultimately needs unity amongst it's inhabitants to thrive. How can there ever be any unity, when the people within your borders don't even speak the same language, do not share a common ethnic identity and hold wildly differing cultural and religious practices?

My old school did something like this: putting pictures of kids from minorities on their website to look more 'ethnically diverse' even though it was a predominantly white school.

This isn't about "elevating" people above anyone else. It is about recognising that institutional prejudices exist and that these prejudices will continue to be perpetuated without some kind of external intervention.