The term “diversity” holds a privileged position on many college campuses, including the University of Mississippi. Ask any faculty member, administrator or student on campus and they’ll tell you that the University promotes diversity in and out of the classroom.
Many student organizations, including some of our Greek Life organizations, have attempted to adopt this policy to create American “melting pots” within their respective groups. But with every good theory, there is a downfall. Although it seems to be an appealing idea, there is a linguistic deficiency in the term “diversity” that has often translated to its practical use.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the definitive source of the English language, “diversity” is defined as a noun meaning, “the condition or quality of being diverse, different or varied.”
This definition certainly matches the principles and values we wish to hold as a university and student body. The words “diverse,” “different” and “varied” all promote our pursuit toward cultural, social and political parity in every campus endeavor.
You may be wondering, “Well Kay P, what’s the problem?” In order to answer such a question, I must offer you the definition to a term that has begun to usurp “diversity,” and for very good reason.
Since 1985, the term “inclusion” has taken multi-cultural rhetoric by storm, in many cases replacing the term “diversity.” The Oxford English Dictionary defines “inclusion” as a noun, meaning “the action of including.”
Although both “diversity” and “inclusion” take the form of nouns in their semantic use, there is a distinct contrast expressed in their definitions. While “diversity” is a “true noun,” one that is a person, place, thing, idea or quality, “inclusion” is a very different species. As one may notice in the definition of the term, “inclusion” is a noun which depends on an action.
“Inclusion” gestures toward an active process by which someone or something is integrated into the fabric of another. On the other hand, “diversity” can be understood as purely aesthetic.
An example of this is seen in much of the marketing materials produced by universities across the nation. In the posters that appear on billboards and in brochures, institutions capture, whether intentionally or unintentionally, diverse groups to represent their student body. This is, in my opinion, “diversity” in its true form. There appears to be a “diverse” or “varied” depiction of student life.
However, one cannot make any judgement about the “inclusiveness” of the institution based on this promotional material because they are not aware of any act of inclusion. Thus, as aforementioned, we are prompted to understand “diversity” as a term of aesthetic, not action.
Fight divisive systems with your actions, not your visual appeal.
Kaypounyers Maye is a junior education major from Gulfport.
