Diversity is a strength.

The phase is ubiquitous. It features in university halls, political speeches, and on progressive tongues everywhere, generally uttered with something close to religious reverence. Repetition begets the illusion of truth, and when the words are used so often and widely, many forget to ask whether they are actually correct.

They seem true. The idea that combinations of peoples with different values, perspectives and backgrounds are more creative and effective in solving problems than the composite groups are individually feels correct. Important to the functioning of a critical mind, however, is the willingness to take ideas assumed true and subject them to scrutiny. One ought not accept, on their face, statements that are intuitively true without subjecting them to rigorous evidenced-based testing.

There has been woefully little effort to test the veracity of the diversity claim. If a doubtful eyebrow is raised, one is accused of bigotry, xenophobia, racism (or a trifecta thereof). To question, to inquire, to doubt: this ought to be standard practice when weighing important ideas. Yet when one questions the diversity mantra, the response tends to consist of (at best) anecdotes and feelings or (at worse) accusations and insults.

It may be true that diversity is a strength; it may be true that diversity is a weakness. What is probably true is that diversity has some benefits and some disadvantages. What is probably not true is that diversity is always a strength. Diversity simply means difference. If skin colour is what is being measured, a racial egalitarian is required to say that diversity is irrelevant. A group of Asian and White individuals geared toward a particular task is not more innovative or likely to be successful than a group of Black individuals geared toward the same task simply due to the racial makeup of the respective groups. If one disagrees with this statement, a whole host of other—and generally more serious—issues must be worked through.

If diversity advocates are using race as a proxy for ideas (a dubious proposition), one must consider what benefit these ideas endow on society. This is a complicated question, but what should be immediately apparent is that it cannot be answered in the abstract. One cannot say that different customs and ideas are beneficial without knowing the content of the ideas and customs, how they interact with each other, and how they interact with the customs and ideas of the host country.

It is certainly reasonable to think that the addition of certain ideas and customs to a society could have negative consequences, or at least have no particular value to society. To disagree with this one would have to argue either that there do not exist anywhere in the world ideas and customs which are distasteful, violent, oppressive, unenlightened (and on), or that there simply is no effective hierarchy of values by which one could objectively measure such a thing. Most reasonable people would reject both points, which leaves the argument standing that it is not enough to say that diversity is a strength without defining the sorts of ideas and customs that are beneficial and the sorts that are not.

Critically examining diversity in this way allows for the maximization of benefits and the minimization of costs. There is simply no justification to avoid such scrutiny. True ideas can withstand close examination and criticism. If diversity is a strength, it can stand in the sunlight without defenders rushing in with umbrellas.

To this end, testing the diversity claim requires at minimum two steps. The first is to define terms. What is meant by diversity and what is meant by strength? The second is to establish a method of measurement. How does one verify the claim? These can be condensed into a single sentence: what do you mean, and what evidence do you have to support what you mean?

The diversity claim is not an axiomatic truth. It is a falsifiable claim that can be fairly and reasonably challenged. Indeed, unless critical questions are answered, the diversity slogan is little more than a motivational phrase used by those wishing to benefit from its use. It is a meaningless mantra that has no place in serious conversation.