The Education of J*U*S*T*I*C*E T*H*O*M*A*S
The admission by Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of being “clueless” as to the meaning of the word diversity was a brave admission of ignorance since the word does, in fact, have a clear meaning. Diversity is not some vague social construct, but a well-defined scientific principle.
The science of ecology defines diversity by two primary components: the richness (the number of differences) and composition (the scope of identity differences) of members of an ecosystem. In Justice Thomas’s use case, the ecosystem would be defined at the community or society level.
The ecological model has clearly demonstrated that, given equitable opportunity for its members, diverse communities are substantially healthier, more stable, and more productive than those with limited numbers and forms of their members. The most diverse communities are the healthiest communities; the relationship between diversity and community stability highlights the need to maintain the greatest richness possible within communities. However, it is diversity composition that has that has the greatest positive effect on community function due to differences in how members acquire and use resources, how they interact with other members of the community and the environment, and the context of their lived experience in the dominant, normative environment in which they (or their ancestors) may have spent their lifespan (like the managing the presence of predators).
In addition, ecological science also has shown us that communities with limited diversity are less able to adapt to changing environmental conditions. This fact argues against Justice Thomas’s syllogism that the same arguments could be made for diversity and segregation.
Even in the face of risk to their community, dominant members may seek to limit diversity richness and sustain their dominance by preferentially selecting members for full inclusion based on their “fit” (as determined by mental models or cultural mores). Another way that diversity composition can be limited is through convergence, where otherwise non-dominant members are forced to adapt or evolve similar phenotypical features of the dominant members (like clothing, hair styles, communication patterns or other markers) in order to survive; non-dominant members that don’t converge are forced out (or into extinction).
Given the science, it is in the best interest of civil society and our broader social ecosystem for social structures such as government, law enforcement, and our healthcare and educational systems to take active measures to increase their diversity, richness, and composition. Efforts to limit the capacity of social structures to ensure their diversity is also anathema to the productive evolution of our social ecosystem; resistance to evolutionary forces increases the risk of changes in the environment that can be destabilizing to the survival of the dominant members and subsequently create opportunity for others to find a more integrated place in the ecosystem.
However, we can avoid crises associated with such destruction events by actively disassembling the structures that function to support and sustain limitations on active diversification. Social structures that commit to policies that ensure their diversity based on race, color, social background, gender, disability, culture, or religion should be encouraged, supported, and protected in their efforts to ensure a more stable and successful society; while some members of the population may have to adapt, the benefits of such diversity accrue to everyone and support a more productive and positive future for our social ecosystem.
