The Supposed Requirement For More Diversity Will Only Divide Us More

The Supposed Requirement For More Diversity Will Only Divide Us More

The Diversity Movement, racism and immigration

Recently, there has been this call for more diversity in the workforce, more diversity in schools, more diversity in jobs around the world. This all sounds like a great way to promote a better world for all countries, but by simply looking at what psychology suggests about how humans view people, it should be hard to completely cave into the current diversity movement's initiatives. The truth is, we will never see eye to eye on race issues. People of difference races and ethnicities have their own attitudes about in-groups and out-groups. Social psychology can easily prove that the mental processes that produce such a divided attitude is actually completely normal and should not be confused with the idea of racism. It is the extreme view of in-groups that can promote racist attitudes.

I make this claim a lot when explaining the difference between seeing someone as different from you and being straight up racist. I see a Muslim and I automatically assume he or she might have come from the Middle East or some other foreign nation, and might know a lot of people named Mohammed. I might also think he or she prays every night to Allah, practicing the Muslim faith. Is this racist? Absolutely not. It becomes racist when I figure out he or she was born in the United States and I continue to suggest he or she is from the Middle East. This is a basic case of social identity theory. These ideas that have come to mind did not appear because of some ingrained hatred for Muslims. For some people, simply calling them Muslims is somehow racist. In that case, I find being called an American very offensive. These ideas came to mind because we all have a form of social identity theory fused into our minds, and a lot of times, we do it subconsciously. Social identity theory states that "group members of an in-group will seek to find negative aspects of an out-group, thus enhancing their self-image". From the very beginning when we start to see who we are as individuals, we then start to see which group(s) we could be a part of. Social identity has three major steps, which have no racist intentions, although if taken to the extreme, could result in racist attitudes. They are: categorizing, identification and comparison. A man by the name of Henri Tajifel is best known for his work in social identity and aspects of prejudice. He is quoted as saying "stereotyping (i.e. putting people into groups and categories) is based on a normal cognitive process: the tendency to group things together." The fact that these processes are initiated on such a subconscious level should mean it would be hard to get rid of it, as the current diversity movement claims are required for people to coexist. The truth is, there will be blacks, whites, Muslims and Hispanics that will work together in society. So suggesting we should not be picking out the superficial differences between these races is to deny all of Tajifel's most credible work on social psychology.

Today, topics that typically garner backlash from the diversity movement are; support of border patrol, support for national security and support for Donald Trump. I am not denying there are extremists on the right that have called for the death of blacks, the annihilation of Muslims due to terrorism, and the continued existence of the KKK in some communities. These accusations are not at all representative of the attitudes of the aforementioned. People with such beliefs make up a drastically small percentage of the country, and to think they will somehow impact government legislation is absurd. I for one am a supporter of increased border security due to the exponential increase of immigrants into this country. And this is not because of my disdain for diversity or a sense of racial prejudice against those coming from Mexico. It is the fact that since 1960, the number of immigrants entering the U.S has more than quadrupled, exactly from 9,738,100 to 43,290,400 in 2015. Now compare this to the influx of immigrants to Elis Island in the early 20th century ( starting in 1900, a number of immigrants entering the country only rose to a climax of roughly 4 million in 1930, then went down). There is a serious problem with our current immigration laws and they need to be more strict. Again, I should clarify that making such claims has no relation at all to racism, but by the mere fact that there is a sincere concern. I also cannot stress this enough. People who support increased border patrol have issues with ILLEGAL immigrants. Of course, our country was founded on immigrants, but the key work is LEGAL immigrants.

To conclude, this article is not rejecting the idea that there are indeed racists out there, but the most basic forms of categorization should not be confused with racism, but by the theory of social identity, something we all have. The sooner we begin to realize that sometimes recognizing the differences between ourselves and other cultures is the right way to work together, the sooner we can live in peace.

Cover Image Credit: Youth Intervention Programs Association

Popular Right Now

I'm An 18-Year-Old Female And I Will Never Be A Feminist

Honestly, I'd rather be caught dead than caught calling myself a modern-day feminist.

"A man told me to have a good day... I'm triggered." How ludicrous does that sound? Tune in because that is the extent of modern day feminism.

Sure, I think boys are stupid and that I'm probably better than 90% of the male population, but that doesn't make me a modern-day feminist. Now I believe that woman should stand up for themselves, and Golding's quote: "I think women are foolish to pretend they are equal to men, they are far superior and always have been," is by far one of my favorite quotes... but modern day feminism is not something I want to be associated with.

I'm all for "anything you can do I can do better," and "We can do it!" but realistically speaking in some situations, that isn't feasible. As an 18-year-old woman who works out regularly, and is stronger than the average female, I couldn't carry a 190-pound man back to a safe zone after he was shot on the front line of a war even if I tried. It is not anatomically possible for a grown woman to be as strong as a fully developed male.

Reality check: Men and women are not equal.

They are not physically equal, they are not mentally equal. Modern-day feminism is equality between the two genders, but corrupt and on steroids. I support what feminism used to be. I support women who work hard and have goals and ambition... not girls who hate men and stomp around with no shirts on to piss off the public. Feminism has developed into a polluted teaching that young men and women are plunging into.

We are built dissimilarly.

The human brain is literally an organ that is sex oriented. There is a cognitive difference, that singlehandedly destroys gender equality.

I will not spend my time running a revolution against anyone who likes Donald Trump. I am not going to binge watch Trump's twitter in an effort to start some leftist gob of drama. I refuse to be part of this head hunt to attack all Republicans on the newest Instagram post made about how feminism is stupid. I do not hate men, and society would crash and burn without the successful men and women who work together to create what we call the United States of America.

Why, you ask? Why are the 15-25 year olds of our society clinging to feminism? They are hopping on the rapidly growing bandwagon where all the hipsters, feminists and Trump haters reside. It's "cool" to hate Donald Trump. Twitter is a world of liberalism, hatred and fake love towards all. Social media is where this generation is living — and modern-day feminism brews there.

We need to keep separation in the household within roles.

We must raise our children to do what they are best at rather than trying to do something they are incapable of just to prove an irrelevant point.

Women must stand up for what they believe in and be strong in their shoes, while not getting so caught up in what your modern day feminist says she thinks is right.

We cannot let this briskly changing society sway us away from what is going to keep the world working precisely.

Cover Image Credit: Macey Joe Mullins

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

To Fix Taxes, We Have To Rethink 'Wealthy'

"Wealthy" doesn't mean the same for everyone.


When discussing taxes today, so many politicians are quick to rush to the adage "tax the rich." Bernie Sanders has called for the rich to be taxed higher to pay for Medicare for All. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has called for a 70% tax on the wealthy.

However, all of these proposals are missing a key thing: a true definition of rich.

When thinking about what counts as rich, it is important to distinguish between the "working wealthy" and the "investment wealthy."

The working wealthy are the people in society that get paid highly because they have a high skill set and provide an extremely valuable service that they deserve just compensation for. This class is made up of professionals like lawyers, doctors, and CEOs. In addition, the working wealthy are characterized by another crucial aspect: over a long term calculation of their earned income over time, they don't come out as prosperous as their annual incomes would seem to suggest. This is because this set of the wealthy has to plunge into student debt for degrees that take years to acquire. These jobs generally also require a huge amount of time invested in lower-paying positions, apprenticeships, and internships before the big-money starts coming in.

On the other hand, the investment wealthy is completely different. These are the people that merely sit back and manipulate money without truly contributing to anything in society. A vast majority of this class is born into money and they use investments into stocks and bonds as well as tax loopholes to generate their money without actually contributing much to society as a whole.

What makes the investment wealthy so different from the working wealthy is their ability to use manipulative techniques to avoid paying taxes. While the working wealthy are rich, they do not have AS many resources or connections to manipulate tax laws the way that the investment wealthy can. The investment wealthy has access to overseas banking accounts to wash money though. The investment wealthy can afford lawyers to comb over tax laws and find loopholes for ridiculous prices. This is tax evasion that the working wealthy simply does not have access to.

That is why it is so incredibly important to make sure that we distinguish between the two when discussing tax policy. When we use blanket statements like "tax the rich," we forget the real reasons that the investment wealthy are able to pay such low taxes now. Imposing a larger marginal tax rate will only give them more incentive to move around taxes while squeezing the working wealthy even more.

Because of this, in our taxation discourse, we need to focus first on making sure people pay their taxes, to begin with. Things like a tax of Wall Street speculation, capital gains taxes, a closing of loopholes, and a simplification of the tax code. These things will have a marked improvement in making sure that the investment wealthy actually pays the taxes we already expect of them now. If we stick to the same message, the only thing we will be changing is the rate that the uber-wealthy are avoiding.

Related Content

Facebook Comments