Do You REALLY Value Diversity, Or Only Some Kinds of Diversity?

There’s a lot of talk about the value of diversity today, which encompasses both private and public employers. The State of Iowa, in fact, undertook a massive diversity training project for all executive branch employees last year, and I had the good fortune of being hired as one of the trainers. In the training sessions, we talked about many different types of diversity, including gender, race, age, disability and sexual orientation. Most people can see (or at least be politically correct enough to acknowledge) the benefits of this kind of diversity. Additionally, most will give lip service to the desirability of diversity of thinking, noting that different perspectives and opinions provide a richer and more inclusive solution to various problems facing businesses today. However, I’m seeing more and more intolerance for political diversity – and this is not limited to any one party.

As an example, I recently saw a posting on Facebook by an individual I consider to be a friend and colleague, although he is clearly more liberal than I am. When we talk face to face, he is respectful in how he states his position; sometimes we simply have to agree to disagree, and that’s fine. I still come away with a different perspective to consider. But in his Facebook posting, he noted that “The Tea Party has their panties in a wad because 47% of Americans don't pay Federal Income Tax (but do pay sales and payroll taxes). GE earned $10.8 BILLION in profits and paid $0.00 in taxes. Exxon has a similar situation. If you open your mouth about the 47% people who aren't on the tax rolls, be prepared to explain why you aren’t BILLIONS of times more offended by GE and Exxon.”

Setting aside for a moment whether the facts are accurate, and why those two scenarios may or may not be different, I would make two observations. First, there have been numerous articles and news reports regarding the Tea Party, with the most common theme being that they are not a group that can be easily pigeon-holed. So to say that the “tea party” thinks or believes any one thing can be a bit of a challenge.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, why use language like “has their panties in a wad” or "if you open your mouth about..."? Although he is certainly free to express himself in (almost) any way he wishes, insulting language like this does not facilitate “civil discourse.” It only makes people angry, defensive and unwilling to listen to the speaker’s point of view. The question itself (i.e., “Are you as angry at GE and Exxon as you are at the non-tax-paying Americans, and if not, why not?”) is a good one, but the “in-your-face” manner in which it is presented is probably not going to encourage productive discussion.

His choices of phrasing may also have adverse effects on his business. Although I certainly respect his expertise in his field, his decision to use language that could potentially offend clients and potential clients (who may be friends, colleagues or clients of mine) makes me a bit leery of recommending him to others.

Finally, I am surprised at his choice of language because of his dedication to diversity. His comments suggest that he is only open to diversity in areas of race, gender, etc., but not politics or even diversity of thinking. I don't necessarily believe that of him, but someone who does not know him well and just reads his post, might.

People are constantly complaining of how polarized our nation has become. Perhaps if both sides of the political spectrum (and everyone in-between) would tone down the insulting presentation of their comments, and instead ask questions with a sincere intent on learning why their opponents believe as they do, it would encourage people to work together to find common ground and solutions for the difficult problems we face.