The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality by Michaels, Walter Benn(October 3, 2006) Hardcover

by Walter Benn Michaels

“Michaels has written a bracing polemic that should quicken the debate over what diversity really means, or should mean, in academia and beyond.”― The New York Review of BooksIf there’s one thing Americans agree on, it’s the value of diversity. Our corporations vie for slots in the Diversity Top 50, our universities brag about minority recruiting, and every month is Somebody’s History Month. But in this “eloquent” ( Chicago Tribune ) and “captivating” ( Los Angeles Times ) book, Walter Benn Michaels argues that our enthusiastic celebration of “difference” masks our neglect of America’s vast and growing economic divide.When it was first published in 2006, The Trouble with Diversity provoked a firestorm of praise and condemnation―not only hailed as “genius” ( The Economist ), “cogent” ( The New Yorker ), and “impossible to disagree with” ( The Washington Post ) it was excoriated as a “wildly implausible” product of “the ‘shock and awe’ school of political argument” ( Slate ) and “Seething, misplaced, amnesiac resentment” ( The Nation ). Now, a decade later, Michaels offers a new afterword on how our regime of equal-opportunity exploitation has only intensified. Magnificently iconoclastic, he demonstrates that commitments to diversity fail to offer a premise for social justice and in fact legitimize the economic forces that drive inequality rather than offering a resistance or even a critique. Most importantly, he makes the case that we should pay less attention to the illusory distinction of culture, and more attention to the real discrepancies of class and wealth.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Sociology, Race, Philosophy, Social Science, Economics

Unknown Binding

First published October 3, 2006

Reviews

[Tyler · Rating 4 out of 5]

The title says it: Identity has replaced economic insecurity as the issue modern liberalism embraces. For that very reason, conservatives also embrace debates on diversity. The fact that these two sides of society agree to make such an issue of diversity has the effect of shutting off all debate about economic class.

Identity is the red herring of politics: Nobody today can make a serious issue out of who another person is. Identity, we find, actually preserves the notion of merit -- the assumption that people got where they are through their own efforts.

For example, white students can legitimately feel that they "deserve" to attend Harvard because Harvard has a diversity program and all races are represented on campus. But because neoliberalism has become the de facto arbiter of social justice, these same students see no reason why Harvard admissions shouldn't discriminate according to wealth. This attitude sets up a class of people against whom it is acceptable to bear prejudice. This revised notion of a just society extends way past Harvard to encompass all the landmarks of opportunity in society and categorically exclude the poor. So much for merit.

Diversity -- identity politics -- has one other supreme advantage: It costs society nothing. Society can demand as much of it as it desires, and it will still cost nothing to respect. On the other hand, how much would it cost to do anything about poverty? Ahh ... now we begin to see in the book why the media and the political system make such a fire-breathing fuss over diversity.

The book is smoothly written and the subject is thoroughly examined by the author. I strongly recommend it for anyone interested in the subject of economic inequality and class. After finishing this book, readers will look at the media's obsession with identity politics in a much less benign light. Instead of what the new president can do about race, should we instead be asking what he can do about inequality?

[Steffi · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book's last sentence first 'the trouble with diversity is that it keeps us from talking about the trouble with capitalism'. Usually my intellectual vanity prevents me from reading these bestselling political economy books where the college professor turned bestseller author mistakes readers for first year students and constantly and directly addresses the them with relatable examples.
The book is like a (non-dialectical though) version of the philosophical post-marxist 'recognition versus redistribution' aka secondary fronts debate. Still, the argument, with which I fully agree, is the same: discrimination is not exploitation; addressing discrimination without looking at exploitation essentially amounts to redistributing poverty and shitty jobs or allowing minorities a seat at the exploiters' table. Hillary Clinton style, basically, whose feminism boils down to having more women (of colour etc) in wallstreet boardrooms rather than addressing economic inequality, minimum wages. (Et cetera, don't get me started on her.) Anyway, if Marxist political philosophy is too heavy for ya, this will be a good intro to deconstructing the faux aka neoliberal left's obsession over diversity. However, I can already see many pitfalls and how this book can be misunderstood in terms of there is no racism or gender inequality. This is the advantage of more theoretical approaches analysing how class, race and gender reinforce each other.

[Will Shetterly · Rating 5 out of 5]

Walter Benn Michaels is brilliant, and like many brilliant people, he's misunderstood by people whose ideologies conflict with his insights. Rather than quote from this book, I'll quote two bits by him from elsewhere that are consistent with what you'll find in this book.

From "Chav chic, and respect the poor": "...at a time when class difference in the US is as high as it’s been in the last hundred years, we’re being urged not to talk about what we never talk about (the inequalities produced by capitalism) and to talk lots more about what we always talk about (the inequalities produced by racism). Why?"

And from "What Matters": "In 1969, the top quintile of American wage-earners made 43 per cent of all the money earned in the US; the bottom quintile made 4.1 per cent. In 2007, the top quintile made 49.7 per cent; the bottom quintile 3.4. And while this inequality is both raced and gendered, it’s less so than you might think. White people, for example, make up about 70 per cent of the US population, and 62 per cent of those in the bottom quintile. Progress in fighting racism hasn’t done them any good; it hasn’t even been designed to do them any good. More generally, even if we succeeded completely in eliminating the effects of racism and sexism, we would not thereby have made any progress towards economic equality. A society in which white people were proportionately represented in the bottom quintile (and black people proportionately represented in the top quintile) would not be more equal; it would be exactly as unequal. It would not be more just; it would be proportionately unjust."

[Damien · Rating 1 out of 5]

Did you ever meet an intellectual whose opinion you respected and then had to listen to them try to explain some thing to you while they were on crystal meth? That's what this writing reminded me of. I pretty much agree with his basic point (I think), but all the tangents he goes on make him sound like a socialist Rush Limbaugh who happens to make $175,000 a year. I expected a lot from this book and got next to nothing; the front cover was the only thing good about it.

[Tony G. · Rating 1 out of 5]

Fakes left, goes right.

[Ushan · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a braindump of a leftist university professor of English who argues that the Left should concentrate less on fighting discrimination and more on fighting exploitation, less on fighting racism and more on fighting inequality. He argues that race does not exist, culture is arbitrary, but class is real, and concentrating on cultural diversity distracts from class struggle. As the first step, he proposes equal funding for public schools and the banning of private schools, although he acknowledges that even this first step is Utopian.

The problem is that culture and class are hard to separate. Not all cultures are equal in having "a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology" (this wording comes from a book called Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice: A Sourcebook). And suppressing minority cultures in order to lift individuals out of poverty was done at a large scale to the native people of North America and Australia in the early 20th century; it is now considered evil. Is Michaels prepared to say that it was good?

[Vi · Rating 2 out of 5]

Michaels makes the case that class rather than race or gender is the real issue in U.S. society. Though he certainly makes good points, and his discussion of the marginalization of class issues within the U.S. is important, Michaels ignores intersectionality and research done on the affects of gender and race on getting a job, keeping a job, and salaries once one has a job. Furthermore, if one is concerned with economics and quality of life, it is of the utmost importance to address these issues as well as able bodied status.

[Lydia · Rating 2 out of 5]

Like many of the reviewers here, I agree with some of Walter Benn Michaels' points, particularly that discussions of income inequality were (in 2006, when it was published) and really, despite the financial collapse and bailout, despite Occupy, still are conspicuously absent from public discourse. However, his lack of historicity (conflating history with genetic heritage and/or using literature as examples without a strong sense of historical positioning), his generalizations about cultural and intellectual movements (such as feminism--whose?--or indigenism), and his refusal to position himself either socially or culturally despite uncritically using the first-person plural "we" throughout the book, make this an argument that my second-semester composition students could easily tear down. I expected a more sophisticated and nuanced treatment of this important topic.

[Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

You can't keep race alive by translating it into culture, Michaels proclaims, and yet we do and there it sits at the center of the American experience if one believes all the clap-trap emanating from the academy. Michaels tackles the controversial issue of anti-semitism -- "the fact that Jews were white was almost always more important than the fact that they were Jewish" -- which he considers to be a manufactured shibboleth of Jewish victimization. The real discrimination that we Americans carry out every day, repeatedly and with relish, is, says Michaels, discrimination against the poor. Universities that tow the multicultural line are the factories ever producing new ways to insist that discrimination, and not exploitation, is America's fundamental problem.

Michaels posits that 'Black' intellectuals have become nostalgic for Jim Crow -- precisely because it defined and created a Black cultural community -- and therefore must perpetuate and project White attitudes that made Jim Crow possible 80 years ago, but which no longer exist among the majority of the population and that are certainly not carried forward institutionally or judicially.

This is a serious book that will undoubtedly make a lot of people (mostly liberal academics) seriously angry. And why is that? Because Walter Benn Michaels provides a clear and rational voice to those of us fed up with the glorification of cultural constructions that ultimately espouse division based on the fabrication of race and racial identity.

[Meg Petersen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was just enormously interesting. I don't agree with all of what the author says, and he definitely downplays race, but I think he is right about something essential. People will go to great lengths to protect their privilege, and don't mind "celebrating diversity" as long as it doesn't threaten that privilege.
Sometimes all of this focus on diversity allows the privileged to believe that they have earned their privilege because they are some how better or more deserving. The author does a good job of destroying that idea. Will have to think about this more.

[April · Rating 2 out of 5]

The idea of this was more thought provoking than the book. He played amateur political theorist, sociologist, and religious scholar but it never came back to the central idea that we overlook inequality to exalt identity.

[Bhaskar Sunkara · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's good, he doesn't always "phrase things to his advantage," but as a provocateur I can respect that.

related: http://theactivist.org/blog/why-are-w...

[Whittyfh · Rating 5 out of 5]

We all love diversity, right? We can all get behind it, it's a non-political, non-threatning cause we can all jump in and support. Plus, when we see injustice in the world, diversity is a go to fix for everything whether that be MORE diversity, or diversity awareness, diversity day, cultural competency what ever problem you see can be solved through diversity mediation. That is exactly what the author Walter Benn Michaels argues is the problem with diversity. When we draw our attention to diversity we draw attention away from the real problem we are not supposed to talk about which is class inequality. By having such an intense focus on diversity and inclusion we never really solve the real problem... inequity and social injustice. Diversity has been a key tool in modern neo-liberal capitalism because as long as we all celebrate diversity in a non-threatening way everybody goes home happy and feels good about themselves at the end of the day and no one will complain about why all of the wealth has accumulated to the top 5% of the country. Warning, do not read this book before an upcoming diversity training! After reading this book the mere mention of the word "diversity' will make you feel like vomiting. You have been warned, now go read this book and then call me because I want keep a dialog going.

[Nicolas Name · Rating 1 out of 5]

If you have already read or are familiar with Marx (the real Marx, not the boogeyman he is made out to be) then this book will offer you little to no new insights.

For a better interpretation of the root causes of the behavior of the wealthy, the right-wing, and the left, I would suggest Escape from Evil by Ernest Becker. An argument that essentially treats opposing forces as evil is one that does not truly understand the motives of the acting party.

[Rachel · Rating 1 out of 5]

I had to read this for a class. Though he's right that we need to talk more about economic inequality and include class more in diversity conversations, his premise that diversity is what is causing us to ignore class and perpetuate race is just false. Like socialism would be great, and I'd love it if we had more economic justice, but are people supposed to just suffer until then?

[Emily · Rating 1 out of 5]

Good on economic justice, but really lousy on anti-racism.

[Rayna · Rating 1 out of 5]

some chapters were extremely engaging and others seemed extremely pointless

[Patrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not the ideal messenger, but a necessary message

A review of The Trouble with Diversity by Walter Benn Michaels

JDN 2456543 PDT 19:54.

Walter Benn Michaels is really not the best person to be addressing the philosophical, political, and economic issues involved in identity politics: After all, his PhD is in English and he's best known as a literary theorist. His writing style is competent, but sometimes a bit verbose and repetitive. He does not appear to have learned that brevity is the soul of wit (though to be fair, that is a lesson I've never learned very well myself). Worst of all, he acknowledges the support of Stanley Fish, who is insane.
Still, his basic message is sound, and much-needed: Identity politics is a dead end. Dividing people up into genders, sexual orientations, ages, and worst of all "races" and "cultures" (which, as he rightly points out, are scientifically nonsensical categories) does not advance the goal of social justice. It is at best orthogonal and at worst a dangerous distraction.
Indeed, Michaels writes as if he thinks that this might be intentional, some kind of right-wing conspiracy to make us all talk about diversity so that we ignore economic injustice. I find that unlikely; while certainly there are many people who don't want us talking about economic injustice, I don't think that they are the ones largely responsible for advocating diversity. No, I think diversity and identity politics were well-intentioned projects of social justice that took on a life of their own, accidentally triggering a deep human instinct for tribalism that overrode our (evolutionarily much more recent) rational principles of justice.
Michaels is apparently one of a select few, myself included, who realize just how divisive identity politics really is. Most LGBT people I've talked to strongly disagreed with what I said about Lavender Graduation, though disabled people I've talked were mixed on their responses to what I said about the disability community. Yet the more I think about it, the more I stand by what I said; the goal of equality is not to have me acknowledged as special for being bisexual, it's to be left alone because being bisexual doesn't matter. It's not to being respected for the diversity my migraines create; it's to cure my migraines.
And there is something I like about the style of the book; Michaels has a way of making the truth obvious, making it seem like we should have understood these things long ago. Examples follow.
If you, like me, have long felt that diversity is overrated or maybe even a totally wrong approach; if you have recognized how nonsensical the categories of "race" and "culture" are only to be rebuffed for being an anti-liberal bigot; if you have tried to find solutions to the global problems of poverty and inequality only to be told that feminist solidarity or "black power" is more important—this book is probably worth reading. And on the other hand, if you think we're all insane, and obviously diversity is wonderful, and we should respect and cherish "the black experience" and "Asian culture", this book is definitely worth reading. Some of the "differences" you are talking about aren't even real, and those that are real (like gender and sexual orientation) aren't particularly worth celebrating.

Page 15, on how the ultimate goal of social justice must be a world where differences simply don't matter: "An important issue of social justice hangs on not discriminating against people because of their hair color or their skin color or their sexuality. No issue of social justice hangs on appreciating hair color diversity; no issue of social justice hangs on appreciating racial or cultural diversity."
Page 43, on why the idea of "black culture" is nonsensical: "The problem is that the minute we call black culture black, […] in order for a sentence like 'Some white people are really into black culture' to make sense, we have to have a definition of white and black people that is completely independent of their culture."
Probably my favorite, on page 81: "Although no remark is more common in American public life than the observation that we don't like to talk about race, no remark—as our self-description and the very existence of these [diversity] rankings suggest—is more false. […] In fact, we love to talk about race." We clearly do, don't we?
This one on page 88 hit home because I am an upper-middle-class recipient of several merit scholarships, but I can't really disagree with it: "Another way you can put it is that where need-based scholarships give money to the poor, merit-based scholarships give money to the rich."
Page 122, in reference to companies apologizing for their past involvements in slavery and the Holocaust: "Apologizing for something you didn't do to people to whom you didn't do it (in fact, to whom it wasn't done) is something of a growth industry." We think of this as perfectly normal, yet Michaels is quite right that with a bit of thought it's baffling. "Chase" was supportive of the Nazis? But it has completely different staff and management now; what is this "Chase" of which you speak?
On page 126, Michaels points out how we have it exactly backward; we think apologies make sense and restitution doesn't, when quite the opposite is the case. "[…] the people who did the bad things can't be punished. But their descendants can give back the money they should never have had. Apologies are irrelevant, but restitution is not."
Page 136: "The majority of Ameriacns, for instance, think there should be no inheritance tax, that is, they think that hard work and ability should make no difference whatsoever when it comes to distributing the billions of dollars that change hands from one generation to another."
On page 139, he captures something I've been trying to explain to economists for years; people aren't being irrational just because their being altruistic; indeed, it doesn't even follow that they are irrational just because their beliefs are wrong. "And there really isn't any contradiction in thinking that it is more important to stop abortion than it is to further your economic interests."
Page 140: "The real contradiction is between our support for equal opportunity and our support for all the things that make our opportunities unequal." (Or, I might add, opposition to things that would make opportunities more equal, like welfare, food stamps, basic income, and socialized medicine.)
This passage on page 144 reminded me most of all of Johnathan Haidt and why I hate him: "[…] they also prefer to understand our political differences as differences in identity rather than ideology, as differences in who we are rather than what we believe."
He makes a lot of really good points about how the "crisis" of disappearing languages and cultures is really not a serious problem; after all, people are giving up these languages and cultures voluntarily for the most part. Even when that isn't the case, the coercion is wrong, but why is it bad the "lose" the "culture"? And why are we focusing on these issues instead of the much larger problem of poverty and economic inequality? "[…] the disappearance of languages is a victimless crime. The disappearance of jobs isn't."
Michaels is hard to pin down as liberal or conservative; in some sense he's far left, but he often disagrees with standard liberal positions. He supports affirmative action only as a "better than nothing" system that should be replaced by income-based reforms, and I concur.
He also has some bad things to say about both liberals and conservatives, like on page 173: "And when people do want to have the debate (when they want to talk about inequality instead of identity) they are criticized by the right as too ideological and by the left as insufficiently sensitive to the importance of race, sex, gender, et cetera—that is, as too ideological."
He brilliantly takes down the sort of mealy-mouthed religious relativism that Dr. Hoffman spouted. On page 174: "Only someone who doesn't believe in any religion can take that view that all religions may be plausible considered equal and that their differences can be appreciated." On page 177: "And since politics to some degree involves your beliefs—you run for office in part by expressing and arguing for them; you govern more or less according to them—it can make no sense to say that religion should be kept out of the public square." I also made a similar point in "Is Secularism Sustainable?" Secularism effectively depends upon believing in atheism, but not being willing to make atheism your national policy.
This is my second-favorite, on page 189: "While the debate over whether America should be Christian is a step in the right direction, a debate over whether America should continue to worship at the altar of the free market would be better still."

[Lucas Foster]

A full-throated condemnation of racializing our failed state’s growing inequality is how labor populist types signal their anti-woke wokeness. The trouble is well-meaning people, mixed in with some patently evil motherfuckers granted, have the primacy of race so deeply ingrained that they end up reflexively distorting the very good ideas proffered by the Walter Benn Michaels of the world. And getting smeared as a literal Nazi time after time sours you on overcoming these internecine quibbles. Lines are drawn, everyone’s butt-hurt and heartbroken, even though they claim it’s actually good cause now they know the enemy. I can tell you that from the sidelines, it’s brutal to watch, the dissident left falling for the same traps that did the alt-right in couple years back. The center can hold, it turns out! We all know the puppet masters see to it that class differences are dismissed, race gets cynically used to maintain the status quo and all that inescapable soul-deadening stuff, it’s the damn talk of the town, I was told this book is the urtext for these ideas, and sure I guess so. Benn Michaels is funny, bit of a troll, does it elegantly. He brings in Leo Frank and the Turner Diaries, and you go, wow, this fellow edge-lord jew has excellent taste. The book must’ve sold well, it got a 10th anniversary reprint, and it’s not under the auspices of an academic or Marxist publisher. My late grandpa had this novelty toy bullshit detector in his office, it was a plastic thing he’d hold up to me, click and it blared “bullshit, bullshit!” That’s the project of this book, a noble one. Lotta stuff about the academy, cause that’s the author’s background, all rigged as should be perfectly clear to anyone who pays attention, I recommended to my woc friend in a PhD program. Have a good laugh when he talks about companies that practice predatory lending on black families exorcising their demons by making a big show of how sorry they are that the founding partners owned slaves—this is it, the world we live in, definitely sucks, hollow as easter chocolate. It’s great, Benn Michaels is certainly a brilliant guy and this is his proud legacy, although I’d like to check out his book on photography too.

[Jen · Rating 3 out of 5]

I heard part of an author interview on a local radio show, and was interested enough to look for this book at the library. His basic idea is interesting - he argues that class and wealth are overlooked as root causes of inequality when issues of race/diversity are at the forefront. Racial diversity programs are popular with organizations because they are inexpensive. But they don't really touch the root of many of the issues they are supposed to address, which is inequality of opportunity due to disparities of wealth. (I don't have the book in front of me to get an exact quote, but to paraphrase, diversity just means we all have to change the way we act to other people, while true reform of the class system to bring about something closer to equity of opportunity would mean spending lots of money.)

He uses the example of enrollment in the ivy league - no matter what your race is, if you are poor, you won't end up there (or the chances are very small - I think he said 2%) and if you are there, no matter what your race, you come from a family that is of above average means. The students may be diverse in skin color, but not in income. He talked quite a bit about school funding, and how the disadvantages of kids who come up in poor school systems make it impossible for them to compete on an even playing field at college admissions time.

I thought he made some good points and his overall thesis makes sense. But the first third of the book felt unfocused and repetitive. I wasn't sure what the point was going to be. Some of the swipes at diversity initiatives seemed gratuitous, and I didn't think he needed to be dismissive of racism as also having an impact (maybe thought it would sell more books?)

I definitely agree that we need to have an honest assessment of the role of class and money in our society and how that impacts equal opportunity. I just wish this book had supported the ideas a little better. Even so, I'd probably recommend it to anyone who is interested in populism or class issues in America.

[Fatima · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm generally in agreement with what Michaels lays out here, essentially that an emphasis on diversity is often used to obscure and ignore economic deprivations. This is particularly true in corporate settings, where it's much easier for higher-ups to pay lip service to the benefits of diversity rather than pay people better wages, and in the political arena, where too many politicians would rather either virtue signal their support for diversity and inclusion (liberals) or rail against how doing so is destroying America (conservatives) while none of them actually do anything to materially improve the lives of working people. In reading through the book, though, I found some of Michaels's critiques of culture to flatten the full role it plays in many people's lives, and that was harder for me to square with. This is particularly notable when considering this book was written in 2005/2006; the America of then looks quite different in many ways from the America of today and it would be interesting to read an update of Michael's thoughts on identity politics in the Trump (and now post-Trump) era. Still, a worthwhile read.

[Kimberly · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book, except for the final chapter, "Conclusion: About the Author". That chapter basically read like a large bit of prewriting for the entire book. I'm glad that you make $175,000 a year, Walter Benn Michaels, and you still feel poor, perhaps proving some of the larger points of the preceding chapters. But I really think this display of introspection detracted from the other, tightly written chapters.

That being said, I would recommend this book to anyone who wonders why despite all our great efforts towards diversity, inequality still persists that generally falls along racial lines. But Michaels maintains that this sort of inequality has less to do with race and more to do with class and the division of wealth in this country. By the end of the book, I would have to agree with him.

"The problem with affirmative action is not (as is often said) that it violates the principles of meritocracy; the problem is that it produces the illusion that we actually have a meritocracy."

[Ingrid · Rating 5 out of 5]

Summary/notes/comments about this book as I was reading:

Intro: Racial diversity is now seen as the most important thing to fight for. The celebration of racial difference makes us accept differences in economic statuses and actually stops us from fighting economic inequality.

Chapter 1: The concept of race was previously based on the idea that there are biological differences between “races.” however, now, we agree that this is a false concept. still, we attach ourselves to the idea of race as a social construct even though it’s based on a false premise. we also think of racial identity as synonymous with culture (i.e. you’re black when you’re culturally black). of course, this is not true. the author argues there is no way to define any race because it’s not rooted in truth, so we shouldn’t

Chapter 2 is called “Our Favorite Victims” and analyzes a couple stories (fictional and real), one about a wealthy Black man who get discriminated against when traveling to the south. He’s upset that he’s made to move to the train for “colored” people bc he can afford and bought a first class ticket. This chapter goes into detail about how we (Americans) are fighting racial discrimination instead of fighting economic oppression and exploitation. We see wealthy minority people as deserving of their economic privilege/power. In this way, we are neoliberals—believing that the free market is necessary to achieve social justice

Chapter 3 is called “Richer, Not Better” and is about how elite/private universities and their students support affirmative action because it tricks them into thinking the problem is racial inequality and that the solution is racial diversity. since affirmative action is supposed to even the playing field racially, it fools us into believing that (rich white + asian) people get into elite universities purely on merit. it gives the illusion that we have a meritocracy. the fact is that elite universities are incredibly economically non diverse. a common statistic at elite schools is that close to 20% of students come from households in the top 1% of wealth.
the author cited an example at Harvard where there’s a service called Dormaid to clean students’ rooms for $85. harvard students protested that it was an overt display of wealth, separated rich vs poor students, and would make poor people feel bad. the author argues that there are so few poor people at harvard that the students’ arguments are more so to make themselves feel better by believing that there is economic diversity on campus. bc that feels better than knowing you benefited from an economically unequal system.
I sort of disagree here bc I knew several low income students in college and I think they would feel bad if there was a service like Dormaid. even though there are very few low income students proportionally and that is a big issue, I think trying to ensure equal experiences at a university still matters! but I also understand the author who generally argues that by worrying about racial diversity and economic equality at elite universities, we are ignoring and not participating in something harder and more important: dismantling elitism and wealth inequality as a whole.

Chapter 4 is called “Who are we? Why should we care?” It’s in large part about languages and endeavors to re-learn / revitalize ancestral, indigenous languages. The author argues that all languages are equal and suit the needs of their speakers. When a language disappears, it’s not because it’s worse than existing/dominant languages, so we should accept their disappearance. He argues that focusing on language revitalization unnecessarily distracts us from fighting economic inequality. He extends this to some people’s fear that with cochlear implants + medical advancements, there will one day no longer be deaf people and therefore no longer be sign language. Some deaf people and disability rights advocates think this is a problem, but the author claims that we should be trying to prevent disabilities in people as they are real disadvantages.
This chapter pushed me the most because I think there are real reasons for language revitalization to happen, and I don’t think being deaf, in particular, is “such a bad thing."

Chapter 5 is called “Religion in Politics: the Good News.” It’s about the relevance of religion in politics. Since religions are often used to justify opinions that affect the public, we need to consider religion in the ‘public square.’ The idea of “respecting all religions as equal” doesn’t make sense since if you think one religion is correct, others must be wrong; if you think none are corrects, they must all be wrong. Whereas it’s problematic to disagree with someone because they’re a woman or because they’re Black (this is prejudice), he argues that it’s reasonable to disagree with someone because they’re Christian or Muslim etc. without (necessarily) being prejudiced because believing in a religion = agreeing with certain beliefs.

Finally, the conclusion addresses the social construct that is now class. At the time this book was written (~2006), people making over $100k were in the top 7% of income earners. However, it’s easy for people in that category to see themselves as (and to feel) poorer than they are bc they see others who are way richer than them. It turns out people increasingly identify as middle class despite the reality of class stagnation (or even increase in inequality). Class = class identification. So, instead of actually needing to redistribute wealth, we just need poor people to think they are richer than they really are and rich people to think they are poorer than they really are. Class becomes an identity that we hold and are encouraged to be proud of and celebrate. Celebrating diversity = accepting class inequality. This situation worsens as we find more and more aspects of diversity to celebrate. Honoring poor and working class people makes it easy to ignore that we should be fighting poverty instead.

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Other reviewers have summed this book up, so I thought I'd focus on the last chapter (without the book in front of me, mind you). I will vouch for the last chapter and say that it's this chapter where Benn Michaels earns being called a "literary theorist." The chapter is certainly a lighter note to end on, and wouldn't perhaps be my choice, but who am I kidding, I loved this as a parting shot. From other reviews of the last chapter, had this chapter started the book readers might have misinterpreted (as some have done anyway) the tone.

For what it's worth: book publishing makes money. Benn Michael's argument at the end of this book preempts the accusation as to what his goals might be, all at once making fun of his own class, and pointing out how his class renders him vulnerable as the author.

[Rebecca · Rating 1 out of 5]

The idea is an interesting one. The first chapter about defining race draws you in and makes you think but the rest of the book is just a rambling mess of jumbled thoughts and run-on sentences. Its like meeting an interesting person at a party, being drawn in by some compelling insight he states and then realizing you just spent the last forty-five minutes hearing him repeat himself in less and less interesting ways. Somewhere around chapter three you realize you've just been half-listening, nodding along and hoping someone else at the party will interrupt so you can escape. I kept hoping there would be a big payoff that made all his blah, blah, blahing compelling again, but nope. Was this book edited for redundancy?

[Katie · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a bit of an oddball. I was excited to read it because the author seemed to defy the orthodoxies of both the left and the right, but as the book went on it all just kind of blurred into a rant. Paragraph breaks became fewer and farther between, points got reiterated just a bit too often, and then finally came an abrupt (and premature) end and a bizarre postscript wherein the author refers to himself in the third person and discloses his salary. Entertaining enough if you're interested and have the time, but unfortunately didn't shed nearly as much light on this subject as I had hoped.

[Todd Stockslager · Rating 5 out of 5]

Short and cogent argument that the current "neoliberal" emphasis on diversity (of race, culture, language, or religion) devalues economic equality and real political progress. "Celebrating diversity . . .is now our way of accepting inequality."

Michaels doesn't spend much time talking about his suggested solutions to the problems, but based on what he reveals, I would strongly disagree with most of his solutions anyway. He has, however, framed the arguments exactly right, and with a slyly sarcastic wit belying his income ($175k) and occupation ("tenured radical" English professor at expensive private university).

[Deniz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another great critical work. While some of my classmates were put off by his unyielding no-nonsense writing style, this book, perhaps coupled with specific historical readings of civil war/cold war/colonialist/capitalist history, actually makes the most compelling case for a radical re-imagining of issues around inequality: namely to actually address them materially, instead of rhetorically/superficially. Michaels takes no mercy on a the (neo)liberal project of moderatism, and in doing so reveals the very tragic ways in which we continue to accept diversity as a placeholder for material injustice and economic inequality. Diversity can be (and is) gamed, access to capital, however, cannot.

[Kate Levin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really sharp polemic, more intellectual than What's the Matter with Kansas? but not dogmatic or stuffy. Argues that U.S. institutions (colleges, businesses, government) glorify diversity as a means of obscuring and neglecting the problem of economic inequality--that actually, the emphasis on diversity preserves the current economic order because people are duped into thinking that everyone has access to power. A little removed from the actual world at times (the globalization chapter especially), but worth reading for the energetic (often funny) writing and the quality of his thinking.

[Mary · Rating 5 out of 5]

Definitely the book that I've had the most conversation and controversy with. There must be some further classification of diversity: things that are different, but just fine (race, ethnicity, etc.); things that are different but shouldn't be (wealth inequality, treatable disabilty); things that are different and should be made undifferent through talk (diversity of thought). I do have limits for this last issue, but great controversy, well written. Maybe a FYF book for next year, if not outdated.