By Dax-Devlon Ross

In a recent op-ed NYT columnist David Brooks argues that an increasingly divided nation needs a national service program that would “force members of the upper tribe and the lower tribe to live together, if only for a few years.” In addition to the increased accessed to wealth, Brooks hints at a civilizing effect that this interaction can have on the lower tribe. He doesn’t say what the upper tribe is supposed to get out of the deal but he does end the piece by suggesting forced mixing would create a “better elite and a better mass.”

I like Brooks. I think he is fair and thoughtful. I enjoy reading him. In this instance I think he was angling for something daring but ultimately skirted around the thornier issue that an integrated society aims to interrupt—the misguided beliefs that those in the upper tribe have about themselves and those in the lower tribe, and the way those beliefs coupled with the concentration of wealth and power in the elite’s hands reinforces the division and inequity that maintains a caste system based largely on race.

That’s a mouth full; I know.

Forced diversity has a bad rap in this country. Its detractors rile up their base with hot-button terms like lowered standards, quotas, reverse discrimination, government interventionism and social engineering. Its advocates have traditionally defended diversity with shaky moral arguments rooted in equality, justice and rights. For the record, diversity for the sake of diversity is dangerous. If done just to meet a quota or appease a group, it’ll likely a remain superficial, fringe project that will ultimately confirm the deep-seeded prejudices of its detractors. Moreover, feigned efforts belittle and undermine the real value of diversity, which is finally beginning to emerge. In one broad study of 250 U.S. companies, increased diversity was shown to improve business performance across the board. In one of the most widely circulated diversity experiments to date, researchers at Tufts found that diverse juries take longer to deliberate, weigh more issues and come to different conclusions than all-white juries. The most important conclusion social scientists have drawn thus far is that having diversity in the room influences the way people think and ultimately decide, perhaps even unconsciously.

In the last six months alone the Obama administration has taken major steps to inject this new understanding of diversity’s importance into our body politic. Last August he signed an executive order requiring federal agencies to advance diversity in the workplace. “We will only succeed in our critical mission with a workforce that hails from, represents and is connected to the needs of every American community,” the director of the Office of Personnel Management said in a statement accompanying the order. This past December the administration issued new diversity guidelines to school districts and post-secondary institutions. School districts can now shape policies and school locations to achieve a better racial mix. In a sharp reversal of the Bush administration’s “race neutral” policy, colleges and universities can now “consider race to further the compelling interest of achieving diversity.” In a statement coinciding with the new guidelines, Attorney General Eric Holder said, “Diverse learning environments promote development of analytical skills, dismantle stereotypes and prepare students to succeed in an increasingly interconnected world.”

Both statements point to a rebranding effort on the administration’s part. Diversity is no longer being spoken of or acted upon as an initiative to redress past injustices and level the playing field. It’s now being positioned as a key feature of the country’s future prospects. Predictably, both moves were met with criticism from the far right and apathy from the far left.

I’ve been thinking about these diversity initiatives in light of the latest round of racial humbuggery foaming up in the Republican primaries. I’d like to say I’m shocked but I know better. Black folks routinely get blamed for the country’s problems. It’s just the way things work here. I would argue that this episode of black bashing began with Rick Perry’s feckless remarks about the death penalty in early September. His shortcomings as a candidate aside, the audience’s applause following his grossly mean-spirited statements sent a clear message to viewers and to the rest of the field. It was open season on minorities of any kind and the candidate who tapped into the anger stood the best chance of winning that support. In the weeks that followed a gay soldier was booed by an audience of Republican supporters and Newt Gingrich publicly ridiculed the Occupy Movement. It was only a matter of time before black folks got their comeuppance.

I’m encouraged by the broad spectrum of Americans who’ve stepped up to discredit and denounce racism in the past few weeks. I’m equally encouraged that the remarks have inspired many in my Facebook community to take an active interest in the election. But being shocked and appalled by the racism in our country isn’t enough anymore. It doesn’t get to the heart of the matter. The real issue, as I see it, is that candidates are incredibly inept, inarticulate and flat out ignorant when it comes to diversity. These otherwise articulate men don’t have the slightest clue that diversity is no longer a luxury but a necessity. Ron Paul sees civil rights legislation as an affront to American values. Rick Santorum isn’t aware of the existence of a vast black middle class that defies his welfare stereotype. Newt Gingrich’s problems are twofold. He thinks black people are the only folks offended by his disparaging remarks and that arguing his case against welfare before the NAACP is a sufficient solution. As for Mitt Romney, as governor of Massachusetts he stealthily repealed the state’s 20 year-old affirmative action policy during a summer recess. (In his first official act as Romney’s successor, Deval Patrick, reinstated the state’s affirmative action policy.) Each of these actions illustrates a clumsy disregard for diversity that has become the hallmark of the Republican Party.

Back in 2007 Al Sharpton invited Fox personality Bill O’Reilly to dinner at a famous soul food restaurant in Harlem. Afterward, O’Reilly gushed about his night on the town. “I couldn’t get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City,” he said on his radio show. “I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it’s run by blacks, primarily black patronship.” As far as I can tell he honestly believed he was paying a compliment. O’Reilly’s statements demonstrate the quintessence of the “upper tribe” privilege coursing through the GOP primaries. A white man of a certain age and class can be a credible and highly compensated expert on American politics without any basic knowledge or experience whatsoever with cultures and viewpoints other than his own.

I don’t expect private citizens to feel comfortable talking about or dealing with diverse groups of people. As a nation we’re not there yet. That work is being done incrementally. But I know I’m not asking too much of a potential commander in chief to 1) understand the value of diversity to the nation as a whole and 2) place a premium on having diverse people around him or her in key decision-making roles because doing so improves the administration of government.

As I see it, the problem – the barrier – is that Brooks’ upper tribe has always seen its role in relation to the lower tribe as the civilizer, uplifter, benefactor and gatekeeper. It has rarely appreciated the work it needs to do to prepare for a multihued future or what it can learn from views and values informed by a different set of experiences. The business community is slowly learning this because global markets demand it. Colleges and universities are slowly learning this because competition for talent is stiff and prospective students and faculty are looking for diversity. The 2008 election notwithstanding, national politics remains one of the last visible strongholds of sameness. An astounding 96 percent of the U.S. Senate is white and 83 percent is male. The House is similarly homogeneous. In and of themselves racial and gender uniformity should not preclude good, fair governance. But when you combine these characteristics with the extreme concentrations of wealth in congress, a dispiriting image begins to emerge. Accordingly, it should come as no surprise that Washington appears broken to outsiders. When sameness reigns, change wanes.

From the moment it took office, the Obama administration has by far been the most ethnically diverse administration the nation has ever known. It has striven to nominate diverse individuals to the federal bench and advance the rights of Americans with disabilities, gay and lesbian soldiers and others. It has been, without question and despite its imperfections, a shelter in the storm. Moving forward diversity at all levels and in all forms has to be part of the national vetting process. It is intertwined with foreign policy, immigration and the economy. When we’re talking about diplomacy, we’re talking about how we engage diverse viewpoints. When we’re talking about immigration, we’re talking about who has a legitimate stake in this country. When we’re talking about jobs and unemployment we’re talking about who gets an education, who gets an opportunity, who gets a promotion—all of which have historically been diversity issues. We’re also talking about who bothers pursuing an education, a job and a promotion. People try harder when they feel they’ve got a fair shot. As it stands, the current Republican field has fumbled the diversity ball so badly and habitually at every turn that if this was a football game all of them would be sitting on the sidelines, where they belong.