Diversity Is Not Always A Strength

Diversity is a strength.

This a statement that we often hear.

We hear it cited by corporate human resources departments. University admissions officers. We even hear it from the U.S. Army.

This is a statement from Secretary of the Army Eric Fanning in 2016.

Over thirty years of scientific and organizational research clearly demonstrates that cognitively diverse teams are better at solving complex problems when compared to more homogenous teams, even when the homogenous teams are composed of top performing, highly capable individuals. We know some of this instinctively: different approaches often reveal overlooked solutions. Solving a problem often requires learning from others how to see it differently. 

Researchers at Cal-Tech and the University of Michigan found that teams that include members of different ethnic or cultural backgrounds bring a mix of distinct cognitive approaches, which deliver better outcomes. Business schools teach similar lessons based on their own research on gender. Their findings demonstrate that stronger more effective firms include greater numbers of women at top levels of management. Other studies have documented how teams of individuals drawn from diverse economic backgrounds, academic disciplines, and political affiliations are better problem solvers and drivers of innovation. 

There is no doubt that this true regarding diversity. However, it assumes that the organization shares common values, beliefs, goals and objectives. The Army insures that these elements are aligned through intensive training. There should be no confusion in the overall mission or the chain of command in the Army. The Army knows that if these are not present chaos ensues. 

If these foundational principles are not shared uniformly, diversity is a weakness, not a strength. In point of fact, diversity is a fatal weakness if the foundational principles are not aligned.

Consider marriage. Men and women separately have unique talents, perspectives and cognitive approaches. When combined, these add tremendous value to a marriage. However, if the man and woman do not share the same core values, beliefs and goals the other elements of diversity will wreak havoc to the union.

Over the last decade many countries in Europe have made arguments for diversity as they allowed hundreds of thousands of refugees to enter their countries. 

However, they have increasingly come to realize that the diversity they have introduced has put their society at increased risk. Most of the refugees are not aligned with the values and beliefs shared by the rest of the nation.

The prime example is in Denmark which has recently enacted so-called "Ghetto Laws" in order to integrate non-Western immigrants into Danish society.

Denmark refers to "ghettos" as areas with social problems where more than 50% of the residents are non-Western immigrants.

Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen had previously announced in his New Year speech that the government intended to take measures to “end the existence of ghettos” completely. That was followed by an announcement in March that the government would pursue a new set of laws to will “deal with parallel societies.”

While it’s not the first time the government has tried to abolish “ghettos,” the latest raft of laws mean the government will specifically target these areas—proactively enforcing rules aimed at integrating non-Western, predominantly Muslim immigrants into Danish society.

Many of the country’s 500,000 non-Western immigrants—largely from Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan and Somalia—live in these so-called ghettos. There, politicians say, “Danishness” is threatened by the prevalence of other languages and cultural traditions.

What are some of the new rules?

Children in ghetto areas must enroll in day care from the age of 1 in order to learn Danish values and the Danish language. Those classes must run at least 30 hours per week.

Parents who do not comply could have social service payments stopped.

An entire family can lose its home and housing allowance if anyone in the household commits a crime.

Crime such as theft and vandalism will be punished twice as harshly in "ghetto" areas as is the case generally.

Funds are available under the new law to actually fully demolish some ghetto areas. “For certain ghetto areas,” the plans say, “the challenges of parallel society, crime and insecurity are so massive that it is both practical and economical to [demolish] the ghetto area and start over again.” 

This should be useful perspective for those who keep shouting that diversity is a strength without understanding what it really means.

Denmark, and other European countries, have come to find out that you better have the foundational elements aligned before making that statement. It is also difficult to achieve integration and assimilation and the alignment in values and beliefs when there is mass immigration. 

I find it interesting that President Trump is called every evil name in the book for merely wanting our immigration laws enforced and that immigrants from terrorist nations be vetted more strongly.

At the same time, Denmark is enacting laws that would probably upset the sensibilities of the most ardent supporters of Trump's immigration policies.

The reality is that Denmark shows the reaction and results of what occurs when you believe you are reaching the tipping point as a country.

You have lost your country when you no longer have a border and you do not share a common language, culture and values. It ceases to exist.

The Danes have realized all of this late in the game. Do they want Denmark to continue to be Denmark? If so, they need to do something quickly or it will be lost. The same goes for most of the rest of Europe.

Those that cringe at Donald Trump and others who believe in the enforcement of our immigration laws should think longer term. These laws were put in place to insure that immigrants could be assimilated into our society and culture in a way that would not undermine our shared values and beliefs.

If you don't think this is an issue consider that there are more immigrants living in the United States today as a percent of the total population (13.7%) than at any point since 1910. Bear in mind this is just the percent who are actually foreign born. It does not include their children.

That is why the focus must not only be on illegal immigration but common sense reform of our current immigration laws as well.

If you don't think that the United States is taking in enough immigrants, you should consider this chart. It shows the total number of international migrants (foreign born) in each country in the world according to the United Nations.

Numbers of International Migrants-Top 20 Countries by Numbers
Credit: United Nations International Migration Report-2017

You do not have a country when you do not have core values and beliefs. Losing control now will necessarily result in much harsher measures down the road if you care about retaining those core principles. Look no further than Denmark. By the way, the number of immigrants in Denmark as a percent of its population is actually less than it is in the United States.

Denmark's problem, like most of Europe, is that they have allowed large numbers to immigrate from different cultures in a short period of time without considering the time needed to assimilate to their society.

Diversity is a strength. However, it invites chaos and catastrophe if you do not have a broad consensus about foundational principles. Diversity of opinion in values and beliefs ends in disaster for a country. It is a lesson to remember as we discuss our immigration policy.

Left unsaid is whether all of this has already played a major role in the political division in our country. Is it a mere coincidence that our political divide has gotten wider as the percent of immigrants has increased and the Democrat party has increasingly come to rely on immigrants for votes?

It was not that many years ago that almost every Democrat supported the building of some type of wall on the Southern border. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer all voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006 which authorized 700 miles of fencing along the Mexican border. You can't be a Democrat today with that position. In fact, a great many Democrats now want to disband ICE.

It is wise to remember that diversity is not always a strength.