D***. To some, it's a breath of cool, fresh air.  To others, it's a politically correct way of saying reverse racism/sexism.  It's a loaded word, a powerfully polarizing word.  It is publicly revered in schools and the professional world, but often castigated and mocked in the safety of private circles. 

It's a tool for some, an obstacle to others.  The concept is noble, but the execution is often as flawed as the humans who create and implement its initiatives.  There are moral questions of justice, power, equality and fairness.  None are simple and all are legitimate.  And we have yet to find convincing arguments that close the case with authority.

Trying to balance historical violations rendered by previous generations that created, and now within, social structures that have caused (and still cause) systemic injustices affecting either several groups of differing colors or hundreds of ethnic/racial groups (depending on your perspective)

with

the concept of personal responsibility (or lack of) for one's ancestors' actions and attitudes within and despite the fact that the previous generations created the system and the spirit of division that is continually perpetuated today in many spheres of influence is only one of the tricky tasks.  And is it even fair to punish the children for the father's wrongdoing?

Inherent in this framework are the assumptions that those who are being "helped" are somehow less qualified. Many point to statistics and facts, GPAs and standardized test scores to prove this point. Others respond by pointing to childhood and socioeconomic disadvantages and the need to balance those out. But maybe we need to find different ways to qualify each other.

Many schools do their part as proponents of diversity by allotting a certain portion, though few will call it a quota, of their incoming classes to specific minority groups, but some groups and individuals receive the proverbial shaft as a direct result of this principle.  Maybe it's progress - or maybe it's actually as debilitating to its recipients as it is beneficial.  Many companies do their part as proponents of diversity by hiring large numbers of women and minorities, but few promote these women and minorities to high-level management positions.  Maybe there's an old boys culture - or maybe it is competition at its cruelest.

I don't know. I think that the answer lies somewhere in the balance of all of these hard questions. Or maybe it doesn't. But I've come to the point where I wonder if diversity has been commoditized. To make an analogy from beyond the fence out in left field, when Christianity was "legalized" by Constantine in 312 AD, it became politically and socially advantageous to be a Christian, some scholars argue.  The argument continues that the practice and spirit of Christianity proceeded to get watered down and corrupted, as people had alternative reasons to join the religion, aside from a passionate belief in its tenets, and Christianity has yet to regain the purity and passion that existed before it was "accepted" and exempted from persecution.

At the least, maybe we need to consider what we want from the diversity movement.  Are we happy with the end goal of seeing people of many colors populating the upper echelons of management or Ivy League schools?  Or do we want a society where people are appreciated for who they are, and how and why they are who they are?  Because, if that's the case, cutting people to the front of the line isn't necessarily the best way to accomplish this. Though it may be the fastest, maybe it only achieves diversity that's actually paper-thin.