‘Diversity’ sounds like something transformative or radical. And yet it doesn’t seem to produce meaningful change, even for people labeled as ‘diverse.’ We might call this ‘the enigma of diversity,’ or at least one such enigma worth discussing.
This forms the starting point of sociologist Ellen Berrey in her book, The Enigma of Diversity. In it, she takes a close look at the concept of diversity after the 1960s civil rights era. This gets at the heart of political debates in our turn to cultural politics in the 2010s and 2020s.
Berrey looks into these issues through in-depth case studies in academia, urban politics, and the corporate world. She finds that the appeal to diversity across these domains reflects the interests of powerful decision makers and their constituents. It does so over and above the interests of the people who supposedly benefit from diversity and DEI programs.
The Enigma of Diversity
That, I think, is the true enigma of The Enigma of Diversity.
Institutions carry out diversity programs in the name of members of marginalized groups. But those programs offer nothing to most group members. Instead, they benefit only a few relatively elite members (e.g., black Americans from the professional classes), and their primary beneficiaries are the institutions implementing them in the first place.
Berrey, however, adds some nuance to these claims. As she points out, they’re claims most commonly advanced by elements of the left opposed to cultural and identity politics. Specifically, she cites Walter Benn Michaels as an example, and we might add Adolph Reed, Jr. to the list. Berrey sets herself up in contrast to people like Michaels or Reed.
On Berrey’s account, while diversity programs primarily benefit elite members of marginalized groups, they don’t actively block deeper, transformative social justice. If universities and corporations dropped their DEI programs, Berrey thinks the world would be a somewhat worse place.
DEI and Social Reform
In setting herself up in opposition to Michaels, however, I think Berrey risks slicing things awfully thin. Michaels and Reed — and much of the allegedly ‘class reductionist’ element of the left they represent — advance a more sophisticated argument than Berrey credits them.
The core beef Michaels and Reed seem to have with diversity programs is that they do block genuine, transformative reform. They think institutions implement DEI, in part, in order to make superficial changes in lieu of real changes. Expanding access in small ways can, on this theory, redirect popular demands for meaningful change.
As best I can tell, Berrey actually agrees with all this. She adds only the claim that diversity movements also destigmatize the inclusion of members of minority groups in higher status positions. But Michaels and Reed could probably agree with that.
In short, between Berrey, on one hand, and Michaels and Reed, on the other, I find more of a difference in tone and presentation than in substance.
The Case Studies
The theoretical parts of The Enigma of Diversity show us how to apply the book to our world of politics at a big picture level. But the three case studies form the book’s heart, and they’re worth discussing. Berrey covers affirmative action and college admissions at the University of Michigan, affordable housing in a Chicago neighborhood, and hiring and promotion at an anonymous corporation.
With affirmative action, Berrey finds that the legal system constrains racial justice activists in ways they don’t like. It forced universities to shift from the justice-based language of affirmative action to the ‘inclusive’ language of diversity. For affirmative action programs to remain legal — at least prior to a 2023 Supreme Court case — those programs had to benefit all students and not just members of minority groups. Those weren’t the terms of debate activists wanted.
On affordable housing, Berrey profiles the diverse Rogers Park neighborhood. Local developers pushed tenant activists away from their own interests and toward technocratic discussions of specific projects. Plus, a local politician identified himself as a ‘progressive’ and used national issues like the War in Iraq to distract from issues of concern to tenants. Furthermore, Berrey extensively shows how the appeal to ‘mixed-income housing’ — something we actually need — often serves as a code phrase to divert us to anti-poor housing plans.
Finally, Berrey finds that diversity programs in corporations are the ones most narrowly targeted only at the privileged — namely, those in management and in exempt positions. Companies are far less interested in using diversity to benefit hourly, rank-and-file workers. Among the three types of institutions, Berrey finds corporations the least interested in changing the existing power structure.
Today’s World
Berrey’s case studies are about 10 years old. She went out into the field several years before diversity and DEI became scalding hot topics in U.S. politics.
But the enigma of diversity remains.
Her case studies apply pretty well today, though the legal structure of affirmative action changed a couple of years ago. The example of Rogers Park applies more or less intact. And the corporate world still works similarly, though companies have further restricted their exempt positions and outsources more work overseas.
What key lessons can we draw?
For one, we should remember to take diversity and DEI programs for what they are — small, incremental reforms, not transformative change. Corporations and universities aren’t going to fund radical change. That’s not what they do.
Within those constants, diversity and DEI programs can do some good. They can help make institutions more welcoming and inclusive places. To the degree that they do this, we should support those programs.
But the radical, transformative change we hope to see on the left isn’t going to come about through DEI. For that, we need to build our own democratic, member-based organizations.
Leave a Reply