Diversity

Diversity.  I hate the word.  Don’t get me wrong: I’m not anti-diversity.  Just the opposite.  I proudly helped bring the Steppingstone Foundation to Philadelphia when I worked there and I think boarding schools are the best opportunity for diversity and it’s why I work in one.  I believe in the broadest sense of the word and feel it is our moral obligation to be sure it’s a cornerstone of any proper, thoughtful education.

But I hate the word diversity.  I’d like to rid it from the vernacular and require everyone to articulate exactly what they mean instead of hide behind this catchall word.  I’ve seen far too many charts and reports and accountings under the umbrella of diversity that are either insufficient or superficial.  Or both.

And what does that look like?  Well, first of all, it doesn’t look like anything.  If you think you can look through the window of a classroom door and count the number of diverse students, then you need to get your head out of the early 1990’s.  Students who appear different can be very similar and students who look similar can be very different.  It is only in opening that door and spending time in that classroom that you can truly appreciate the kaleidoscope of experience made rich by the students found therein.

You can check off the easy categories that jump to mind: race, religion, economic means, sexual orientation, and geography (by zipcode for day schools or by countries and states for boarding schools).  But what about sexual orientation of parents?  But why do we assume parents to be plural?  A student from a mother/father home brings a different perspective than a student from a father/father home or a student who was raised by only one parent or no parent at all and has been raised by another relative.  How about students whose family emigrated from another country?  Maybe their parents don’t speak English at home.  How about the white, urban kid who wakes at 6am in order to take two busses and a subway to get to school who sits next to the white, rural kid who wakes at 6am to work on the family farm before coming to school?  And there are differences in learning styles, personalities, abilities, interests, passions, etc.

The list goes on and I’m sure as you read this a category jumps to your own mind that did not cross mine.  But isn’t that the point?  Isn’t the diversity of diversity the challenge?  It requires a school and an admissions dean to determine exactly what they desire and what they value, and then what they will measure.

Students and education and all of us are made better, made stronger by finding our voice and vocabulary to share our unique perspective, and our values and faith and beliefs are made stronger when we must explain if not defend them to others.  We are made further better and stronger by an openness to “other” and not simply to hear or even appreciate but to be willing to be shaped and changed by other, such that other is now part of us.  The exchange must be two way.  In a strong school setting, each student will find their own voice so that they may share and help others learn as well as develop their capacity to change so that they my learn from and be developed by others.

As ones who have the opportunity to orchestrate the social engineering of our schools, we are obligated to do more than fill charts and check off boxes of diversity.  We are obligated to generate and perpetuate the discussion of what a 21^st century school and education should reflect and to be sure we are doing so from within the classroom and not simply through the looking glass of the classroom door.