The strong argument against some meanings of "diversity of ideas" is where you end up discussing astronomy with two astronomers, a NASA engineer, a flat-earther, and a young-earth creationist. That is, there are ideas and beliefs and belief systems that are just silly and counterfactual, and there's no point entertaining them.
The strong argument against some meanings of "diversity of ideas" is where you end up discussing astronomy with two astronomers, a NASA engineer, a flat-earther, and a young-earth creationist. That is, there are ideas and beliefs and belief systems that are just silly and counterfactual, and there's no point entertaining them.
The problem is that this gets applied based on social truth--currently popular positions and received wisdom and things everyone's expected to say--rather than on any kind of careful consideration of the facts. So when we were running up to the war in Iraq, there was no reason at all to include viewpoint diversity on whether or not Saddam actually had WMDs or posed a threat to the US--after all, all the right people were saying that he definitely did and was, and only weirdo outsiders were saying differently.
There are many contexts where "diversity of ideas/opinions" is inappropriate, particularly when applied to facts, as opposed to theories or solutions.
But the "diversity of ideas/opinions" plea is an outcropping from diversity initiatives (now rebranded as DEI, diversity, equity, inclusion) in hiring, academic teachings and discourse, and news reporting. It was a response to efforts to diversity the workplace, focusing only on ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, while being hostile (outwardly) to diversity of ideas. So the flip side of diversity in the appearance of the workforce was no diversity in the ideas and opinions this workforce may bring to the table, in a strange way maintaining sameness rather than combatting it.
In the media, you will hear the diversity of ideas criticism where editors won't allow certain reports/articles to be run, and maintain a narrative control on news reporting. The tone is set at the top, and you have to stay true to it if you want to keep your job, in a shrinking market where jobs are scarce. The lack of diversity also manifests in the ideologically homogenized cliques Freddie describes. I realize there has always been an angle in reporting. I just don't remember the lines being this starkly drawn, and political disagreements being a valid reason to hate people or cut them out of your personal and work life. That part is new.
The strong argument against some meanings of "diversity of ideas" is where you end up discussing astronomy with two astronomers, a NASA engineer, a flat-earther, and a young-earth creationist. That is, there are ideas and beliefs and belief systems that are just silly and counterfactual, and there's no point entertaining them.
The problem is that this gets applied based on social truth--currently popular positions and received wisdom and things everyone's expected to say--rather than on any kind of careful consideration of the facts. So when we were running up to the war in Iraq, there was no reason at all to include viewpoint diversity on whether or not Saddam actually had WMDs or posed a threat to the US--after all, all the right people were saying that he definitely did and was, and only weirdo outsiders were saying differently.
There are many contexts where "diversity of ideas/opinions" is inappropriate, particularly when applied to facts, as opposed to theories or solutions.
But the "diversity of ideas/opinions" plea is an outcropping from diversity initiatives (now rebranded as DEI, diversity, equity, inclusion) in hiring, academic teachings and discourse, and news reporting. It was a response to efforts to diversity the workplace, focusing only on ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, while being hostile (outwardly) to diversity of ideas. So the flip side of diversity in the appearance of the workforce was no diversity in the ideas and opinions this workforce may bring to the table, in a strange way maintaining sameness rather than combatting it.
In the media, you will hear the diversity of ideas criticism where editors won't allow certain reports/articles to be run, and maintain a narrative control on news reporting. The tone is set at the top, and you have to stay true to it if you want to keep your job, in a shrinking market where jobs are scarce. The lack of diversity also manifests in the ideologically homogenized cliques Freddie describes. I realize there has always been an angle in reporting. I just don't remember the lines being this starkly drawn, and political disagreements being a valid reason to hate people or cut them out of your personal and work life. That part is new.