Diversity vs Equality

Just to muddy the waters even further...

According to the dictionary, diversity is defined as, "1a. The fact or quality of being diverse; difference. b. A point or respect in which things differ. 2. Variety or multiformity."

Or as the person who indvertently started the debate said, "Diversity means recognizing people's differences while still treating them the same."

According to the dictionary, equality is defined as, "1. The state or quality of being equal."

Or as Sherry said, "Equality means treating everyone the same."

Whenever I do any type of search on the subject the articles seem to be including both, as though they are the same thing. I'm sure some people are now saying what's the big deal? They both mean treating people the same. Or, don't the words mean virtually the same thing? In reality they are miles apart even though they seem pretty similar. In one instance you are not recognizing them as individuals and in the other you acknowledge the fact we are not all the same.

The U.S. seems to promote equality, with the melting pot and the identity focuses on being a US citizen. Canada, on the other hand, promotes diversity. Canada recognizes the notion that people are unique and have their own beliefs. People aren't going to fit into a cookie cutter mold. Differences can stem on many fronts: Race, Religion, Sex, Culture, Physical & Mental Disabilities, even Sexual Orientation.

Is it possible to strive for diversity or would it be reduced to equality? Can we actually recognize the differences while still treating people the same? Let's take apples for example.

Red

Green

Sweet

Sour

Eating

Cooking

Both of these are apples. They have different tastes and are better suited for different tasks. But once we start looking at their differences are they still being treated the same? Or are we now showing preferential treatment for one? In the same vein, we can consider everyone as being equal on the basis that they are human but once you start adding in the differences this becomes the basis for exclusion or discrimination.

A good example is the recent anti-smoking law that just came into effect. No smoking in public places. Bars can no longer allow smoking on the patio or have an enclosed room for smokers. Non smokers are undoubtedly cheering the news and think it's been a long time coming. There has even been pressure not to allow smoking in an apartment. But what happened to the rights of a smoker? I'm not saying the law is entirely bad and it will undoubtedly have health benfits for people that are around smokers. But... why did the law also make a bar remove the enclosed area? Logic would say that if non smokers go in there then they are making their own choices. Instead we are now discriminating against smokers.... while the government continues to make a profit off them, and have increased the taxes on cigarettes 3x since the liberals came into power in Ontario.

Another good example is the right to marry and the right to adopt children. Undoubtedly some people are now saying that is a constitutionally protected right so what's the problem? Yes you do have that right, as long as you are heterosexual. Homosexuals are routinely denied the same rights the heterosexual community has always enjoyed. The argument against it seems to stem from the lifestyle and people's views over it. But why should they not have the same right simply because they are a member of society and this was their choice? Let's say a couple is together for 10 years and then one of them dies on the job. If they were heterosexual then the other person would get the benefits. If they were homosexual, on the other hand, they would not. How many jobs include medical or dental benefits? Since the homosexual relationship is not recognized they do not receive the benefits if their partner has them. I'm not trying to start a debate over the behaviour. That isn't the point. The point is that we discriminate againt them on a daily basis and most people don't even acknowledge it. In fact, most people probably say they are accepting and support equality... but do we really? A conservative government was voted in... and part of their platform was that they would re-examine the rights of gays to marry. Since I already know the debate that is coming from my views. Let's go back to the Bible for some insight. According to Luke 6:37-38, "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38Give, and it will be given to you." Or Luke 6:41-42, "1"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Or how about John 8:7, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Enough said on that one.

Non smokers are not treated the same as smokers. There is a certain inequality there. And who decided that the right to smoke should be denied in a social setting? I may have quit smoking but that doesn't mean that I don't believe they are now being marginalized. There is definitely an inequality between heterosexuals and homosexuals right down to the rights one has. A lot of the debate comes back to the rights of the individual compared to the rights of the group. Diversity would say that each person should be given the same rights while still recognizing the differences. How do you treat a nonsmoker and a smoker the same? How do you give them equal rights? Since one group wants smoking outlawed and the other wants the freedom to continue smoking if they so desire. Is there any common ground between the two groups? Okay I guess the workplace has been a compromise... I have no problem with not being able to smoke on the job. Okay so that wasn't really a compromise any ways... The non smokers won. If the new laws had been fair and not aimed at discrimination then diversity might have been a little more evident. For instance, banning smoking at restaurants and bars but allowing them to have an enclosed room where people could go to smoke. Then they would not be ostrisized and would be treated fairly.

A stereotype is defined as: "

1. A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.
2. One that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type."

As verb, stereotypes, stereotyping and stereotyped means:

1. To make a stereotype of.
2. To characterize by a stereotype: "Elderly Americans are the neglected sector of the fashion industry, stereotyped by blue hair and polyester pantsuits" (American Demographics).
3. To give a fixed, unvarying form to.

Every day we create stereotypes. It allows for classifications and categories so we can make sense of the world. We often associate stereotypes with being negative but that isn't always the case. A stereotype is simply a simplification or generalization. If you see someone across the street you are already stereotyping them and making an opinion without ever talking to them. We stereotype other groups (such as based on race, social class, gender, nationality, age, sexual orientation, etc.) But even within a group there may be stereotypes. There are often sub groups. For instance women encompass one group but there may be many subgroups within that. From nurturer to businesswomen and we all have certain beliefs about each sub group.

Our entire social system is based on categories and hierarchies. We stereotype people so that we do not have to overwhelm ourselves with thinking of everyone we come across as a unique individual. So can we recognize differences and still treat people the same? From the minute that we begin to acknowledge all of the things the set two people apart it becomes exceedingly difficult to treat them the same. Again this debate largely stems around a utopian society since in a free society it is unlikely that people would be willing to trade in their personal freedoms for equality.

Now back to the question I asked yesterday.... should we focus on the hierarchical nature of society and accept that people are not equal... or should we work towards an emphasis on diversity and treating everyone the same? If we look towards diversity does it have to be an absolute, an all or nothing proposition? Or will that only lead us towards the Big Brother society of Orwell's "1984"? If it's not all or nothing... then should we be focusing the energy on reducing inequality in all areas? or just eliminating inequality in certain areas? I'll leave you, for now to ponder those ideas.