The Complicated Potential Meanings of “Diversity of Thought”

With some guiding questions to determine intended use

Every time I hear the phrase, “diversity of thought,” I cringe a little.  Well, inside I cringe.  Outside, not so much.  I play it as cool as I normally try to be.  That is to say… not very cool.

“Diversity of thought” seems to be a problematic phrase.  In academia, historically this phrase occasionally has been used as a proxy for maintaining the status quo.  This would be used in a situation where someone new is brought into a space (perhaps hired in) and is much like the rest of the group in nearly every way.  However, they were trained or had been recently appointed at another institution (likely a different elite university), so this person contributed to “diversity of thought” of the group from that training.  They were just like everyone else in many ways but, hey, at least they had a different elite graduate program.

Certainly, this example is a bit of a colloquialism.  A very dangerous, status quo affirming one, but a colloquialism nonetheless.

The “diversity of thought” concept varies slightly across different settings and examples.  

From the example above, the phrase sounds like a half-baked method to keep the community firmly entrenched in the way things have always been.

Unfortunately, it is more nuanced than simply something to avoid.  The meaning depends on how it is being used, like many things in life.

“Diversity of thought” can be a next step in the advancement of diversity initiatives.  This can be a nuanced approach that focuses on individuals’ unique perspectives and has roots in neurological research.  Naturally, technology makes an appearance in this conversation, as does a simplified example of cognitive styles.

An interesting point made by Deloitte is that “physical diversity is not a sufficient proxy for diversity of thought.”

But is it really not?  

When we consider the many different aspects of diversity, from physically apparent to societally important but “invisible,” the Deloitte statement seems potentially short-sighted.  If a group is diverse across the many understood aspects of diversity (also then including beyond physical), then diverse thoughts and perspectives seem more likely.  This type of group likely would have varied life experiences, backgrounds, identities, and similar to contribute diverse perspectives and thoughts.

“Diversity of thought” can also be used in a similar method to “viewpoint diversity” and similar trends in education.  Throughout K-12 and university education and across many different US states, viewpoint diversity laws and action are progressing under the assumption of education, and particularly higher education, being a liberal enclave.

This is not necessarily an all-inclusive list.  Certainly, there can be other definitions or appearances of “diversity of thought” and similar phrasing.

Naturally, context appears to become even more important here.  The varying uses and appearances of “diversity of thought” and similar concept phrasing are wildly difficult for basic communication.  When hearing the phrase, it becomes useful to ask ourselves whether the intended meaning is to:

• Reaffirm or support the status quo

• Add another layer of complexity to diversity initiatives (if physical diversity is not a proxy for diversity of thought)

• Serve as an integral part and outcome of diversity initiatives (if it can be used as a proxy)

• Operationalize particular interests in education

• Or something else?

Though not quite definitions, the multiple applications present challenges with communicating meaning.  With these varying contexts and examples perhaps the phrase, “diversity of thought,” may be best avoided or highly clarified more often than not.