What are the Best Arguments For and Against Viewpoint Diversity?

Viewpoint Diversity (VD) is the idea that you want people in a group or organization to have different values and ways of looking at the world.

Proponents contrast it with other kinds of diversity, such as the diversity of “identity” (as can be checked off on a census)—the form of diversity often implied in today’s corporate-speak of “diversity and inclusion.”

“Viewpoint diversity,” by contrast, is a byword associated with centrists like Jonathan Haidt and conservatives like Robert George, who argue that when folks talk about “diversity,” they are really promoting a narrow concept of diversity—a diversity of ethnicity, race, religion, gender, or sexuality, but only so long as the people agree ideologically. i.e., Jews, Christians, and Muslims can be in an interfaith group, but only if they all vote the same way.

Since the aim of What is Called Thinking is to question, I’m going to take a few steps away from the frontier of the culture wars and give you a list of pros and cons on the more general question of why we should want viewpoint diversity. My question is where you come down, in theory and practice, and what you’d add or revise to my list.

Pros

• Viewpoint Diversity is a portfolio strategy. Since we can’t be sure who is right, we want a basket of possible approaches.

• VD is good for building character—encountering people that don’t see things as you do teaches humility, listening, persuasion, as well as the art of how to get along and find shared purpose despite deep disagreement.

• VD helps counteract group-think, which can lead to complacency and self-congratulation, forcing people to be more thoughtful and “show their work.”

• VD ensures that no single person will be a permanent black sheep. Ideally, each person—depending on topic under discussion—takes a turn being an outsider and an insider. Better decision making and better governance emerge when people have an opportunity both to rule (in the majority) and be ruled (in the minority).

Cons

• VD is chaotic; you want a group to be cohesive and to be mission aligned. People can disagree about tactics, strategy, and how to interpret the facts, but they need to share a common purpose, otherwise forcing viewpoint diversity on unwilling people just leads to unproductive conflict.

• VD is a hedge; it works insofar as one lacks confidence in one’s own views. But if one has confidence in one’s views, why go out of the way to invite naysayers? It’s a waste of time. Suffering fools isn’t humble, it’s unmoored.

• VD isn’t really what it says, since it, too, sets boundaries on what is acceptable. The goalposts of the Overton Window may be wider in those who espouse VD, but it’s not like there’s no window. VD has more in common with the homogeneously diverse groups it criticizes—the issue is one of degree, not kind.

• VD assumes a neutral world in which the best arguments win, but ignores or downplays the fact of both hard and soft power. Influence and authority don’t rest with the best argument. As a result, the idealism of those who espouse VD is compromised by the reality of power differentials and other dynamics that people bring with them to the group. VD is easier for some than others, hence the critique that it favors those with “privilege,” broadly defined.

My own view is that neither Viewpoint Diversity nor other forms of Diversity are inherently valuable—it depends on the nature, size, and goals of the group. There is no one size fits all way to talk about Diversity, despite it being a political and cultural football. Thoughts?

---

What is Called Thinking? is a practice of asking a daily question on the belief that self-reflection brings awe, joy, and enrichment to one’s life. Consider becoming a subscriber to support this project and access subscriber-only content.

You can read my weekly Torah commentary here.