It turns out that different people mean different things by “diversity”.
Some people make the argument that diversity of participants’ social, economic, or cultural backgrounds is good for truth-seeking inquiry. If everyone in the discussion is from similar backgrounds, they are more likely to have correlations among their biases and areas of ignorance, and the results of their inquiry will reflect these.
(However, there may be particular cultural views which are incompatible with participating in diverse inquiry because they manifest intolerance of diverse inquiry. One example: views which instruct the adherent to kill people who disagree with them, or to kill people of particular cultural backgrounds. The problem with having a Khmer Rouge partisan in your conversation is not that he keeps saying Khmer Rouge things; it’s that he keeps trying to kill the intellectuals.)
Some people make the argument that culturally non-diverse organizations are more likely to do things which are harmful to the unrepresented people; so underrepresented people should seek representation to avoid harm. For instance, ceteris paribus, a government consisting only of white people (as in apartheid South Africa) is more likely to do harmful things to nonwhite people than a government that represents the diverse racial and cultural backgrounds of that country. Moreover, this is in part because in order to maintain an all-white government in a not-all-white country, the government must actively resist admitting any non-white people.
(In other words: People rationally seek representation in organizations that can help them achieve their goals. Mixing of people from diverse backgrounds happens naturally as a consequence of people trying to achieve their goals through organizations. When we notice that mixing isn’t happening, that means that someone is expending energy excluding others and keeping them from achieving their goals.)
Some people make the argument that institutions (such as governments or universities) are morally obligated to correct for a history which has given advantages to some groups of people at the expense of others; as a matter of justice. This view is often founded on something like Rawlsian maximin ethics.
When we notice that mixing isn’t happening, that means that someone is expending energy excluding others and keeping them from achieving their goals.
Some people also make the related but distinct argument that where that mixing isn’t happening within organizations that are particularly well-suited to achieving goals, that means unrepresented communities don’t have access to that organization’s goal-achieving power, and to the extent that we value equal access to that power by all communities it means we’re failing to implement that value, and that all of this is independent of whether anyone is expending energy to exclude anyone, or has any desire or intention to exclude anyone, or whether we notice it.
Mixing of people from diverse backgrounds happens naturally as a consequence of people trying to achieve their goals through organizations. When we notice that mixing isn’t happening, that means that someone is expending energy excluding others and keeping them from achieving their goals.
In some cases it could be the specific background which prevents people from using a specific organization. For example if there is a religion saying that making cars is a sin, then the lack of those people in car factories does not necessarily mean that the car factories are expending energy to keep them out.
Even if “someone” expends the energy, it does not have to be always the obvious suspect.
It turns out that different people mean different things by “diversity”.
Some people make the argument that diversity of participants’ social, economic, or cultural backgrounds is good for truth-seeking inquiry. If everyone in the discussion is from similar backgrounds, they are more likely to have correlations among their biases and areas of ignorance, and the results of their inquiry will reflect these.
(However, there may be particular cultural views which are incompatible with participating in diverse inquiry because they manifest intolerance of diverse inquiry. One example: views which instruct the adherent to kill people who disagree with them, or to kill people of particular cultural backgrounds. The problem with having a Khmer Rouge partisan in your conversation is not that he keeps saying Khmer Rouge things; it’s that he keeps trying to kill the intellectuals.)
Some people make the argument that culturally non-diverse organizations are more likely to do things which are harmful to the unrepresented people; so underrepresented people should seek representation to avoid harm. For instance, ceteris paribus, a government consisting only of white people (as in apartheid South Africa) is more likely to do harmful things to nonwhite people than a government that represents the diverse racial and cultural backgrounds of that country. Moreover, this is in part because in order to maintain an all-white government in a not-all-white country, the government must actively resist admitting any non-white people.
(In other words: People rationally seek representation in organizations that can help them achieve their goals. Mixing of people from diverse backgrounds happens naturally as a consequence of people trying to achieve their goals through organizations. When we notice that mixing isn’t happening, that means that someone is expending energy excluding others and keeping them from achieving their goals.)
Some people make the argument that institutions (such as governments or universities) are morally obligated to correct for a history which has given advantages to some groups of people at the expense of others; as a matter of justice. This view is often founded on something like Rawlsian maximin ethics.
Some people also make the related but distinct argument that where that mixing isn’t happening within organizations that are particularly well-suited to achieving goals, that means unrepresented communities don’t have access to that organization’s goal-achieving power, and to the extent that we value equal access to that power by all communities it means we’re failing to implement that value, and that all of this is independent of whether anyone is expending energy to exclude anyone, or has any desire or intention to exclude anyone, or whether we notice it.
In some cases it could be the specific background which prevents people from using a specific organization. For example if there is a religion saying that making cars is a sin, then the lack of those people in car factories does not necessarily mean that the car factories are expending energy to keep them out.
Even if “someone” expends the energy, it does not have to be always the obvious suspect.