Skip to main content

The "Cost" of Diversity

We use the word “diversity” and when we use a word we are packing up some concept as a thing. We can put that thing on a shelf and analyze it, talk about it, and use it like a hammer when we find a nail. Diversity, in this way, is defined as something other than the natural order. That is the result of labelling something: we define it as something that needs pointed out as distinct from the normal assumptions. Not that it is positioned as bad but we conceptualize things as the normal every day we’re used to and then diversify as this extra step we can take.

Diversity is an added step.
Diversity is optional.
You should take this extra step, of course, but it isn’t inherent.
But, here is where I’m finding I might disagree with the way we use this language because...

Diversity is inherent.

We live in a world reaching seven billion people and we are nothing close to  homogenous. The human race is colorful and varied and constantly surprising. You will never meet every kind of person there is in this world, no matter how hard you try. You will never have the opportunity to work with every viewpoint and understand the vast possibilities of perspectives on life and love and work and happiness. The people of the world are more diverse than we can ever really conceptualize.

Yet, you look around you and the people you see are more likely than not more like you than different from you. In ways both conscious and non, ways both purposeful and accidental, we have crafted communities, towns, circles of friends, and entire civilizations to weed out the diversity inherent in our species. In the darkest of times we have eradicated it with a prejudice usually only reserved for disease and rodents.

If you look around yourself and see a lack of diversity, this is not normal. This is not the normal way humans exist. This was centuries and beyond of calculated and meaningful separation.

The next time you hear something, even yourself, contemplating the “cost of diversity” please take a step back and ask yourself first: what have we already paid to remove the diversity before me and is any cost to restore our spectrum even comparable?

Diversity does not cost. Diversity was the cost of our society. We have a debt to pay.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Respect and Code Reviews

Code Reviews in a development team only function best, or possible at all, when everyone approaches them with respect. That’s something I’ve usually taken for granted because I’ve had the opportunity to work with amazing developers who shine not just in their technical skills but in their interpersonal skills on a team. That isn’t always the case, so I’m going to put into words something that often exists just in assumptions.
You have to respect your code. This is first only because the nature and intent of code reviews are to safeguard the quality of your code, so even having code reviews demonstrates a baseline of respect for that code. But, maybe not everyone on the team has the same level of respect or entered a team with existing review traditions that they aren’t acquainted with.
There can be culture shock when you enter a team that’s really heavy on code reviews, but also if you enter a team or interact with a colleague who doesn’t share that level of respect for the process or…

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…