My bottom line was that "diversity" is not a goal but a means to an end.
Note carefully: I am not saying that invidious discrimination is justifiable. That is a different issue. I am saying that "diversity" as such ought not be made into a goal.
Can you think of a single case in which diversity is not merely a means?
- A diversity of ethnic restaurants : stimulate a jaded palate.
- A diversity of research groups in a university department : sometimes you get cross-fertilization. Such groups have finite lifetimes, and if there’s only one group incoming students have no research to join when it dies.
- A diversity of viewpoints on the jury : look at the question from as many sides as possible to arrive at the truth
- A diversity of ethnicities in kindergarten : if that's what the neighborhood is—you want everyone to have a basic education
- A diversity of ethnicities in a church : the church is catholic—everyone God made is called
- A diversity of peoples on Earth : OK, this one is above my pay grade, but I suspect the reason was to have as many ways to display and share facets of God’s goodness as possible. We've messed the goodness part up.
- Mandated diversity : full employment for the diversity professionals
Because it is a means and not an end, diversity can fail to accomplish the end, or even prevent it. For example, a completely diverse jury would include Mafiosi, and if you have too many research groups in a department they are too small to do any work.
When you confuse means and ends, you distort the ends and don't do a good job with the means. If "Diversity is one of our goals" in a research group, that tells me that they no longer care wholeheartedly about truth, but want to employ people on the basis of something other than understanding they bring to the table. They try to become a "full employment agency."