Liberals emphasize the value of diversity, and with some justification. Many types of diversity are good. One thinks of culinary diversity, musical diversity, artistic diversity generally. Biodiversity is good, and so is a diversity of opinions, especially insofar as such diversity makes possible a robustly competitive market place of ideas wherein the best rise to the top. A diversity of testable hypotheses is conducive to scientific progress. And so on.

But no reasonable person values diversity as such. A maximally diverse neighborhood might include pimps, whores, nuns, drug addicts, Islamo-headchoppers, Hell’s Angels, pedophile priests, Jain ascetics, Sufi mystics, illegal aliens, silly PC-heads who speak of 'undocumented workers,' insurance salesmen, people who care for their property, people who are big on deferred maintenance . . . . You get the point. Do you really want a kindergarten sandwiched between a strip joint and an outlaw methamphetamine lab? Only some sorts of diversity are valuable. Diversity worth having presupposes a principle of unity that controls the diversity. Diversity must be checked and balanced by the competing value of unity, a value with an equal claim on our respect.

In the TIAA-CREF publication Balance (Summer 2005), there is an article entitled, "Trends Show Faculty Diversity Still Below Par." It begins:

Although the proportion of women and minority faculty has been rising, both are still under-represented at colleges and universities . . .

Some statistics are cited, and then we read:

To improve minority faculty representation, institutions can employ active intervention strategies, use a diverse search committee and create a job description written expressly to enhance the candidate pool, according to Robert J. Jones, senior vice president of the University of Minnesota and a TIAA-CREF Institute Fellow. Little progress will be made if institutions simply follow the usual procedures. (p.7)

The trouble with the mentality expressed in these quotations is that, as I have already argued, diversity as such is not a value. Diversity is not a value just because it is diversity. Diversity is a value only if balanced by the competing value of unity. What one ought to aim at is a faculty unified in respect of excellence. The goal ought to be to hire the best people available without regard to race, sex, or creed. The pursuit of this goal may or may not lead to a certain minority's being either 'under-represented' or 'over-represented.'

But these are tricky words, and ought not be bandied about lightly. Are they supposed to have a normative significance? If Jews are represented in proportion to their numbers in the general population, why should that be considered a good outcome? And if there are proportionately fewer blacks than in the general population, why should that be considered a bad outcome?

Clearly the suggestion in the passage quoted above is that under-representation of minorities is a bad thing. But why? Why the uncritical adoption of the quota mentality?