We often see this word swung around. But what is it?
Some claim that 'diversity' (in the context of 'equality') is merely giving people representation and acknowledging their existence and participation in society. However, increasingly as we achieve this 'equality' and beyond, it seems clear that 'diversity' doesn't stop at representation. Diversity simply means less and less people of a 'traditional' background, or in plain English, less white people.
For example, the Guardian this week launched a tirade against British Prime Minister Theresa May as her cabinet reshuffle has failed to represent modern Britain, as the cabinet is 92% white. One group that has been missing out on representation is black people, described as "just one."
However, there are 28 cabinet ministers (22 officially, but 28 attend cabinet). Of those, one person is black. This gives us a cabinet that is 3.5% black.
According to the census of 2011, black people composed 3% of the UK. So at the moment, black people are overrepresented in the UK Cabinet. However, many liberals consider the black community perspective to be disregarded and them not being represented. (Yes, white people are overrepresented, but merely by 1 cabinet member (UK: 87% white) so hardly cause for outrage.)
Let's look at the US Supreme Court, an institution often derided as being completely out of touch with modern America.
Currently in the United States, Protestants make up 53% of the United States as per the census, or 48% of the United States as per the most recent Gallup survey. [*] Non-hispanic whites also make up 62% of the United States [*], while non-Jewish non-Hispanic whites (ethnic Europeans by descent) make up 59% of the United States.
However in the current Supreme Court, the number of people belonging to the majority religion of the United States is zero, while the number of people who are non-hispanic non-Jewish whites is 4 out of 9 judges or 44%. So the largest group in the United States, the one most often derided .... is underrepresented.
Silly addition to the thread, but let's look at how EA crusaded against it's fanbase (looking at youtube comments and likes/dislikes anyway) by including black people in the British side of the game for the sake of what they called diversity. For what we know, there were 15 000 black volunteers serving with or within British Forces during WW1. [*] I will very generously add all 61 000 South African troops as 'black', although that is highly unlikely to be even half true. We are thus left at 76 000 black troops at some point during WW1. There were however 8.69 million men in the British Forces between 1914 and 1918, a rate of 0.87%. In 64 player servers (in the assumption all 64 were British, impossible), just one black person would shift representation of black people in the British Forces to twice as large as it was in reality.
TL;DR
Black people are overrepresented in the British cabinet
White (European-American) people are underrepresented in the US Supreme Court
Protestants are underrepresented in the US Supreme Court
In what way can you look at these statistics without reaching the conclusion that some 'underprivileged/underrepresented' groups are actually overrepresented, and that those who are offended by the lack of supposed diversity are actually mathematically inept?
So ... what is diversity?
My view is that for a large part of the liberal left, 'diversity' is no longer a word with a quantifiable definition, but simply the state of ever decreasing representation of the original population.
