Sometimes, I hate the word “diversity.”
That may seem odd coming from someone who has that word attached to his job title. In fact, I’ve worked specifically in the area of “diversity” for about a decade. And the issue has been a part of my life since birth.
It may seem an even odder confession from someone who believes the word has, at times, helped journalism face up to both its failure and its future.
But I still cringe sometimes when I have to say it or hear it. I try to avoid it whenever possible. When I can’t, I might refer to it first as the “D” word.
Let me explain.
What does the word “diversity” mean to you?
Depending on who you are, the meaning of “diversity” may be different.
Even the dictionary doesn’t help much. The online Merriam Webster defines it as “the condition of being diverse.” And diverse means “differing from one another.”
For some, the term invokes something positive. For others, something negative. Some journalists consider it the answer to a stronger, more vibrant journalism. Some view it as an affront, maybe even destructive, to the journalism they hold dear.
Here’s the problem. The definition of “diversity” has become polluted, contaminated, skewed, and screwed up by our own perceptions, prejudices and biases.
Some see it as code word for such issues as “race,” “ethnicity,” “gender,” “sexual orientation,” “quota,” “affirmative action,” “political correctness,” or “pandering.” Others might broaden it to include age, geography, abilities, politics, ideology, religion and much more. Still others use it as platform for dealing with inclusion, exclusion, and oppression.
The definition of “diversity” has become polluted, contaminated, skewed, and screwed up by our own perceptions, prejudices and biases.It’s not that “diversity” may, or may not, have anything to do with any, or all, of the above and more. It’s that we don’t always know what the individual using it means specifically.
So simply tossing it out there, without more details, elaboration, and explanation, would be like tossing confetti. It looks nice. It feels good. It’s pretty. And ultimately, it leaves a mess behind.
Does that mean we ignore it? No.
But I do think we need to talk about the word more astutely. Deconstruct it. Examine it. Understand what it means to you, and to others.
My definition of “diversity,” for example, depends on the topic and audience I’m addressing.
In hiring a journalist, I like to think of “diversity” in terms of life experiences. In addition to her or his talent in the craft of journalism, every journalist brings a unique background to the newsroom. How do those experiences complement and contribute to a news organization’s ability to gather and present a more accurate, authentic and complete picture of the world we live in?
When it comes to our stories, I think of “diversity” as looking for a rich variety of voices, perspectives, persuasions, ideas, understanding, culture, religion, lifestyles, politics, and more, in addition to traditional issues we associate with the topic. How do such factors help us understand the people and the issues better?
We need to share our understanding with others — in pairs, in groups, in news organizations. It’s a discussion we’ve been having for years. But it seems like we spend more time talking to, or past, each other than with each other. And we talk a lot more than we walk.
We were talking about “diversity” at Poynter just last week. My colleague Keith Woods, Poynter’s reporting, writing and editing group leader, who used to hold the title I now hold, asked a question similar to the one I posed above. He asked it at the Journalism and Business Values conference.
Smith: “I have to be able to look in the mirror and acknowledge it’s my problem, not your problem.” About 23 newspaper leaders — chairmen, chief executive officers, publishers, presidents, vice presidents of news and top editors — listened to Woods lead a discussion about a report he had written. The report, a McCormick Fellowship Initiative entitled “Do We Check It At The Door?“, offered insights into what high-level news media executives of color avoided bringing to the workplace to succeed. It addressed the question of how “diversity” affected them.
As part of the Poynter discussion, Woods asked the leaders at his session, all of whom were white, to define “diversity.” They grappled with the term in the same way many of us would. One used a broad definition, noting that it wasn’t just race but involved age and geography. Another thought it meant offering different voices.
Cox Newspaper president Jay Smith, who believes it does include race, addressed it unflinchingly: “I have to be able to look in the mirror and acknowledge it’s my problem, not your problem.”
Alan Horton, senior vice president for Scripps Howard Newspapers, wanted to know how to get past the barriers and the pain, “and then do something about it.” Jim Moroney III, publisher and chief executive of The Dallas Morning News, said news executives must look at the makeup of the people who report to them, as well as those who serve on their boards.
“I’ve heard a lot of talk,” he said. “But you’ve got to have a reflection of that at the highest level or you can’t ask people to look at the issue.”
Others are talking about the issue as well. Another colleague, Gregory Favre, Poynter’s Distinguished Fellow in Journalism Values, wrote about the American Society of Newspaper Editors recent “Diversity Summit.” ASNE wants to deal with its diversity goals, which hasn’t been easy.
How can we take this talking to another level? Maybe we should come up with another word all together, along with a clearer and more common definition? I outlined some of my thoughts above. Share your thoughts and suggestions.
Our goal is to address diversity in a way that produces better journalism. To that end, Poynter Online is introducing a new column today: “Journalism with a Difference.” It’s a column we hope will offer new, fresh and alternative ways to encourage and enhance journalistic storytelling. Check it out and tell us what you think.
