By Katherine Sheets, Executive Editor
When we look at the diversity of our nation, we tend to think about the color, sex or age of those in the institutions we are diversifying. Amazon recently underwent changes in a public effort to diversify its board by adding a black woman as its 10th member. According to USA Today, the decision came after increasing pressure from shareholders, employees and the Congressional Black Caucus to accept a proposal mandating the consideration of women and minorities for board openings. Similarly, the National Football League’s Rooney Rule, enacted in 2003, requires teams to have at least one minority interviewee in the process of hiring new coaching staff. The New York Times Company website features a 2017 diversity report that includes data on the past three year’s hiring based on the categories of women, ethnicity and people of color.
Eugene Scott, an identity politics reporter for the Washington Post, said that our core beliefs are shaped by those with whom we can identify, and a lot of this has to do with race. “It’s wrong to assume millions of [Americans] with so many differences will land together on the same issues,” Scott said. People within certain identity groups often externally think along the same line to begin with; who we are shapes how we think. Therefore, diversifying based on race, sex and age will directly impact how our thoughts diversify, as well. However, it’s time to look not just at external facets but examine the hearts and minds behind the institutions we’re changing.
Certainly, it’s important to acknowledge that society’s tech giants, economic powerhouses and culture-shapers are all diversifying from the outside. In a fallen human world, the external is where people know to start. But that shouldn’t be where our diversification stops. First Samuel 16:7 says that while man looks at the outward appearance, God looks at the heart; Jeremiah 17:10 says that the Lord searches the hearts and tests the minds of man. I can’t help but think it’s time we prioritize this kind of action, too.
Perhaps our country would not be so polarized if we weren’t so quick to divide into ideological camps. While many current cultural influencers claim attitudes of tolerance, they are, ironically, quick to dismiss the “oppressive majority.” As the current trend stands, it would be difficult for me, a white, middle class, female Christian, to join the editorial board of the New York Times simply because I fall into a certain demographic category. The popular narrative implies white evangelical Christians wield heavy-handed power over minorities, and our culture has concluded that white protestant thinking (whether reflecting the gospel or not) is oppressive and intolerable, too.
On the other hand, this stereotype of oppressive Christianity did not evolve out of nowhere. How often do Christians shut down conversations with non-believers because they disagree with biblical principles? Christians cannot stand on the outside of culture-shaping institutions and accuse them of not being inclusive of our beliefs when we won’t hear those institutions out. I’m not saying your closest friend has to be an atheist, but if you can’t have a healthy conversation and listen to someone who disagrees with you, don’t expect them to listen to you, either.
What’s the practical application of diversifying thought? For one, start listening more. Purposely seek out people who see things from a different point of view and have conversations with people who hold different beliefs. Start asking: What do I not understand about their perspective, and what can I learn from their point of view? We can’t use “I’m offended” as an argument. When we do, we swim in the murky waters of ironic intolerance. When you hear things you disagree with, engage and learn instead of shutting people down. Debate, and even consider, differing opinions, whether or not you think they’re in the majority. They might end up being right.