First, let's just say I support the emphasis. It is practically impossible to implement. To illustrate:
If each community (town, city, subdivision, etc) was made up of 100 people (just to make the math easy), based on the quick facts of the US Census (numbers estimated for 2007), each community would need to have (split the group 50/50 between Male /Female):
65 White persons
15 Hispanics/Latinos persons
12.8 Black persons
1 American Indian and Alaska Native persons
4.4 Asian persons
.2 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
1.6 Persons reporting two or more races
Now, according to the radio commercials, this needs to be duplicated everywhere across the US; including Atlanta, Miami, Seattle, Grand Forks, Cincinnati, Pueblo, etc. You get the point. Practically, this simply is not possible. So the "admonition" to embrace diversity cannot be honestly responded to by the average hearer. I get the objective: we should be open to different races and should not hinder the integration of "others" within our own communities. OK. But then say that!
But, the argument would go, just "being open to" diversity doesn't change a thing. There must be effort involved. Again, I get it. But maybe the point is then to talk about not discriminating and attacking the negative behaviors and attitudes, rather than trying to promote some bizarre proactive behavior. This was the point of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 anyways, wasn't it? This, I agree with and can support.
But let me point out a few other thoughts. "Diversity" today generally includes a broader agenda then just fair housing. It has led to quotas in hiring practices, ongoing training in the work place primarily for White people, Affirmative Action, and a slough of other tangential agendas. This ultimately has turned "Diversity" into "color counting", sort of like above, but with highly weighted measures on the minority (not hiring 13 Black for every 65 White employees, but rather, for every one White we need one Black, etc).
More importantly, this "color counting" fails to consider one other factor that may not be as easily distinguished: the importance of culture over color. As a White Christian, I have more in common (and am more at home/comfortable interacting with) a Black Christian, than a White non-Christian. The predominant culture of a group of people is what generally attracts them: "Birds of a feather flock together!" The common "feather" being the prevailing cultural principles and values that the flock ascribes to. Since I brought it up, many people say that the most segregated time in America is noon on Sunday (implying when most Americans are at church). And granted there are racial divisions, but I would propose what is even greater are the cultural divisions that can probably be most clearly seen in religious life.
Starting with the family unit, cultural principles set "comfort zones". If you've ever seen the reality TV show "Wife Swap" you understand this. Most often there is not a racial component in the "swap", but the cultural diversity is huge! Remember the brilliantly portrayed contrast of the families in My Big Fat Greek Wedding? Extrapolate this out to the most sacredly-held beliefs expressed in religious habits, and everything in between. Culture is the key, not color! And culture is much more than, yet often mistaken as synonymous with, color/race.
Additionally, where the work place is seen as an example of diversity (as illustrated in the radio ads), I think it should be pointed out that racial differences are in most ways suppressed in the corporate CULTURE that is dictated by an employer. This culture is as pervasive as encompassing dress code, personal articles decorating a workspace, relationship boundaries, and basic standards of behavior with corresponding disciplinary actions for infringement, etc. Individual "diversity" is practically dissolved in a corporate culture. There is no one to do this in a social environment or local neighborhood. This means you can paint your garage door to resemble a Greek flag or decorate your house with Christmas lights like Chevy Chase, or leave your Christmas lights up all year round like Gretchen Wilson. If your neighbors don't like it, let 'em move! And thus, it is clear to see why it is easier to live among those who naturally embrace similar cultural values.
But this leads me to the final thought that comes up when I hear these promotions for diversity. Who says diversity is a good thing? Now slow down. I'm not advocating a Nazi agenda of securing a pure race. I'm asking a question about culture, not color.
Many have suggested that diversity, or pluralism (many cultures being equal in one place), is a good thing. However, Chicago is a very diverse city, but it is not integrated / homogeneous. And the value of homogeneity is what is critical to the success of a community. Homogeneity gets to the heart of mixing diverse peoples into a melded culture. America was known as "The Melting Pot" because the American culture has integrated aspects of various cultures (one example is the popularity of people wearing green clothing on St Patrick's Day, even if they're not Irish). Multi-culturalism has ultimately led to more segregation in inner-cities where pockets of immigrants fail to assimilate into the American culture. So diversity is actually superficial, and potentially conflicted, if it does not integrate culture, but fixates on color alone.
This challenge to the promotion of diversity was underscored in a 2001 study by Robert Putnam, a Harvard political scientist, that was highlighted in 2007 article in the Boston Globe. According to the Globe article,
"The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings. "The extent of the effect is shocking," says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist."
The study found:
"Higher diversity meant lower social capital. In his findings, Putnam writes that those in more diverse communities tend to "distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television. People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to 'hunker down' -- that is, to pull in like a turtle," Putnam writes."
My bottom line is that we should not work for social diversity, as much as cultural homogeneity among different groups. I am not advocating for segregationism or racial isolationism. I am pointing out what I believe should be a subtle, but crucial, shift in the focus of diversity efforts. Ironically, Sunday at noon is one of the prime times in America where this is exhibited, contrary to what many assume. People from every economic background, marital status, occupational pursuit, age demographic, and even race come together, not to focus on their differences, but the cultural values (religiously speaking) they have in common. The differences meld into a distinctly other (from the individual's) and solidly similar (among the participants) cultural expression. This should be a great example for those interested in promoting integration in America.