The Politics of Diversity: Equality has yet to appear

Jerel Shaw


It's strange when there has been so much energy put into the nobility of diversity in societal institutions as equality still remains elusive.  If giving a litany of examples would help, then let's  get started.

Gentrification is surely a derivative of diversity, yet it also be considered 'negative' diversity.  When your traditionally urban black community is invaded by (mostly) well-to-do (white) citizens - even a hand-full - that should present a clear paradigm for diversity.  The only problem is that if the net returns are expected to be positive for the poor indigenous occupants, don't hold your breath.

Poor people and well-off people being next door neighbors can either elevate (or equalize) the conditions of everyone or add depth and complexity to the problem, like when the Biblical scripture says "the poor will be with you always", people may feel that is a license to ignore their plight, whether next door neighbors or not.

Stepping back, let's take a closer look at gentrification - I like how writer  Emily Chong explains it in her post in the online Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy:  "Usually, gentrification occurs when more affluent people move to or become interested in historically less affluent neighborhoods.  Gentrification is a phenomenon such to much debate-some believe that its effects are purely positive, while other argue that gentrification brings about harmful consequences.

Of course, Ms. Chong continues to sufficiently explain her rationale referencing profound data and writers.  For instance she uses a reference from author/anthropologist Dr. Sabiyha Prince (based in Washington, DC: additionally. Dr. Prince is a former faculty member in the department of anthropology at American University.  She has authored books and journal articles that explore the impacts of urban change and societal stratification on Black populations). She can be considered an authority on gentrification and cultural displacement and uses DC as a point of reference in her studies, she says this:

"Gentrification is a policy-driven process that begins with targeting low-income, urban communities for discrimination and neglect and ends with "improvements" that exacerbate vulnerabilities that culminate in displacement, according to conclusions offered by historians and social scientists who have examined the role of racist, housing discrimination - specifically redlining, restricted covenants and blockbusting...".

Dr. Prince further states:  "Becoming estranged from one’s home place is a process that unfolds gradually. It happens when low-income and/or residents of color lose more than they gain from top down redevelopment...".  She shows the DC as a major example.  Yet, other cities have symmetrical negative effects, like, Philadelphia, Portland, Richmond (to name a few).

Hence, gentrification in all of its glorification, in this writers opinion, can be classified as systemic racism - at its finest.  To be sure, this is a good case where diversity seems to be an excuse for intentional institutional and systemic racism.  Of course, there are always some possible exceptions, but this writer does not know of any.  

But, it can at least be said that the degree of the negative effects of gentrification may be different in different communities.  In this diversity scheme blacks and the poor get the short end of the stick. (Note:  You are invited to share your thoughts and experience on this subject).

So, at this point the question should be:  who needs diversity when it only ultimately benefits only the usual suspects?

Yet, let's not get ahead of ourselves.  It would take more than this short article to actually wholly present this writer's view of true picture of diversity.   This is a good start.  Yet, diversity does not result in equality (Let's get that out of the way).  It is not even a solution to equality - based on historical critical evidence.   

Now, arguably, it may give disproportionate opportunity to a few, but that few have never yield results for the rest (Like, it's nice for someone black to go to Harvard, or paid a lot, but what about the rest of us?).

One of my favorite writers and (conservative) critical thinkers, Paul Craig Roberts, recently submitted an article entitled: 'White Peoples and Their Achievements Are Headed for the Trash Bin of History'.  As usual, Dr. Roberts work is well written and researched.  Yet, with due respect, his serving as an apologists for 'white people' in general was a blindside because objectivity has rarely been ignored in his scholarly writings.

He went down the road of making diversity a pivotal concern, and alluded to how it was destroying the quality of life; in other words, the white man's preeminent standing in the world is under attack(?) and the destruction of standards accomplished.

I'm referencing this to reiterate how 'diversity' has been become a tool for dismantlement, as well.  It's like a decoy for power moves.  In other words, no matter how much it claims to 'help to even-the-score', it's done the opposite. People as a whole  who were unequal remain unequal (and once again) people who were rich remain rich and affluent - of course, let's not forget how a few opportunities has been used (literally) a marketing tool for achieving nothing.

Here, I don't necessarily agree with Dr. Roberts, him lamenting the  perceived diminishing of white influence and culture, besides if it is completely dismantled, me and my grandchildren won't be around to witness it. Yet,  I do agree that diversity has been historically misappropriated for years, at a minimum, it's a two-edged sword.  It has done (I repeat) virtually nothing to cast aside racism.  Using a term from Dr. Prince on gentrification, it is a policy-driven process - only to add that it's a half-baked policy.

If you want diversity, make sure that you empower all parties to perform on equal footing.  Diversity can be found not only in housing, education, neighborhoods but also music, entertainment, labor, etc.  It is an acceptable policy (IMO) that can be seen as a neo-quota system, and everyone is not being benefited - the entertainment industry is an excellent model of selective diversity - hence seeing more black faces or hearing more black music doesn’t 't necessarily mean equality - even as was mentioned early, the opportunity for a few cannot supplant the need for an opportunity for the masses. 

Returning to gentrification, if you think the gentrifiers main concern was uplifting conditions of their poor neighbors, you have been terribly misinformed. Diversity and inequality is what we have in society today - they are not one in the same, yet both are caught up in faulty policy and processes.

NOTES:

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/poverty-journal/blog/examining-the-negative-impacts-of-gentrification/

Sabiyha Prince, African Americans and Gentrification in Washington, DC:  Race, Class and Social Justice in the Nation’s Capital 2 (2014).

https://ncrc.org/gentrification-dc/

https://ncrc.org/gentrification/

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/category/articles/