I got a new job recently; a graduate position in a government-funded teaching institution. Well, a couple of days ago, they asked me (and, well, every other graduate who got the job; it was in a Teams workshop) what "diversity" means to me.
To me, "diversity" means more than just the obvious skin colour or sex or gender. To me, "diversity" involves a range of skills, experiences, nationalities, histories, personalities - the more "invisible" qualities, rather than the obvious things.
I just finished watching 1957's 12 Angry Men for the first time in years, and - being made in the 50s - it had a full-white-male cast. Is that an obvious lack of "diversity"? No!
Each of the twelve men in that film is unique, with their own beliefs, biases, histories, ages, occupations, and personalities. One man's a racist jerk who wants the non-white boy on trial to be given the death penalty, no matter what logic states. Another man's emotionally broken because his son ran away from home, so he's projecting his failure as a father - and his anger at such - onto the case.
One man is a senior, yet he's observant, noticing details about the two witnesses no-one else had. Another man is implied to be a foreigner, while yet another looks German. One man is a baseball fan, while another is a salesman, and yet another is an architect.
My point is, 1957's 12 Angry Men is a great example of diversity, since everyone has their own completely unique viewpoint and perspective - yet these days, this movie would be considered horrifically un-diverse because it doesn't feature women or other races, despite them (and the LGBT+) just being other aspects of diversity. Why do so many people ignore, even willingly, these crucial invisible factors, and get hung up on the most obvious ones?
To me, "diversity" means more than just the obvious skin colour or sex or gender. To me, "diversity" involves a range of skills, experiences, nationalities, histories, personalities - the more "invisible" qualities, rather than the obvious things.
I just finished watching 1957's 12 Angry Men for the first time in years, and - being made in the 50s - it had a full-white-male cast. Is that an obvious lack of "diversity"? No!
Each of the twelve men in that film is unique, with their own beliefs, biases, histories, ages, occupations, and personalities. One man's a racist jerk who wants the non-white boy on trial to be given the death penalty, no matter what logic states. Another man's emotionally broken because his son ran away from home, so he's projecting his failure as a father - and his anger at such - onto the case.
One man is a senior, yet he's observant, noticing details about the two witnesses no-one else had. Another man is implied to be a foreigner, while yet another looks German. One man is a baseball fan, while another is a salesman, and yet another is an architect.
My point is, 1957's 12 Angry Men is a great example of diversity, since everyone has their own completely unique viewpoint and perspective - yet these days, this movie would be considered horrifically un-diverse because it doesn't feature women or other races, despite them (and the LGBT+) just being other aspects of diversity. Why do so many people ignore, even willingly, these crucial invisible factors, and get hung up on the most obvious ones?
