 |
|
 |
 |
| A FOCUS ON DIVERSITY John Brooks Slaughter, Ph.D., P.E. Introduction The New American Dilemma Given the confluence of the rapid demographic changes that are occurring in America, the tremendous progress in science and technology that is taking place in developing countries, the serious shortcomings of our public education systems, shifting immigration policies, and the historic underrepresentation of sizable elements of our population, our nation must act quickly on a number of fronts to maintain a strong position of leadership in the STEM disciplines and to ensure a future of prosperity and security. Preeminence in innovation and entrepreneurship will reside in the hands of those nations that are the most adept at quickly building and retaining talent. Other countries, certainly China and India, are moving faster than we are. This is the dilemma facing our nation today. Huge changes have occurred in our economy largely as a result of globalization and technological innovation. Manufacturing has declined while the information age requires more professional and high-tech skills from employees. It is estimated that more than a half million engineers will be needed over the next decade to replace those who retire and that at least that many new engineers will be needed to fill the demand that will exist at the end of that period. We find ourselves importing talent and exporting jobs, not just because it is less expensive to have the work performed by lower-wage skilled workers in developing countries but also because we do not produce enough native-born, well-qualified scientists and engineers in our nation’s colleges and universities. The significance of the competitive situation facing our country is slowly being recognized and responded to by the highest branches of government and by corporations, foundations and academic institutions at all levels. Offshoring, outsourcing and increasing H-1B visa allotments either have been employed or are under consideration. But in the midst of the activity that has been spawned, in large part, by widely-read publications like Thomas Friedman’s book, The World is Flat, and the National Academies’ report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, our leaders seem to have lost sight of the fact that there are many persons in America for whom participation in science and engineering has been and, in too many instances, continues to be less likely for a variety of reasons. And their numbers are growing dramatically. While outsourcing and offshoring may be here to stay, depending upon foreign countries to fill our requirements is not a long-term and tenable practice. Exporting jobs and importing talent is not sound national policy. Certainly we need to develop a more rational set of immigration policies for those wishing to study and work in science and engineering in this country but, perhaps, even more important is the need to increase opportunities for native-born students to prepare for and study these disciplines. America will be unable to retain its leadership position in scientific and technological innovation and keep its competitive edge in the global marketplace of ideas and products unless it does so. To NACME, as well as many other organizations that focus on the needs and interests of underserved and underrepresented populations in science and engineering, the relative absence of African Americans, Latinos and American Indians, women and persons with disabilities in scientific and engineering study and careers is the new American Dilemma. Like the moral dilemma postulated by Gunnar Myrdal sixty-three years ago, this new dilemma comes from our nation’s failure to educate and develop a growing proportion of its potential STEM talent base while its need for talent and skills in science and engineering is escalating. This disparity in representation is increasingly becoming a problem for the STEM disciplines given the demographic changes underway in society. The disciplines of science and engineering have, to a large extent, ignored the trends and failed to recognize or, perhaps, admit that diversity drives innovation and that its absence imperils our designs, our products and, most of all, our creativity.We know that creativity is spawned best in an environment of diversity—diversity in a broad sense that encompasses race, ethnicity, gender, class, country of origin, physical ability, sexual orientation, political persuasion, cultural background and any other characteristic that differentiates one person or group from another. The different life experiences and frames of reference that result from an amalgam of diverse individuals reflecting a broad cross-section of these characteristics leads to the creativity needed to make innovative technological breakthroughs. Last year I had a fascinating luncheon discussion at IBM with Ted Childs and Frans Johanson, whose book, The Medici Effect, discusses this intersection of fields, disciplines and cultures and how existing concepts can be combined into a large number of extraordinary new ideas. The book gets its name from the Medicis, a banking family in Florence that funded creative individuals from a wide range of disciplines. Because of the Medicis and a few others like it, a large number of sculptors, scientists, poets, philosophers, financiers, painters and architects descended upon Florence, found each other, learned from one another, and broke down barriers between disciplines and cultures—spawning the Renaissance—that exciting period in history that left an impact that is felt even today. Engineering has been a reluctant entrant into today’s Medici movement but it must be a participant if America is to retain and sustain a competitive advantage in creativity and innovation in this era of outsourcing and off shoring. Former NAE president Bill Wulf pointed out that “sans diversity, we limit the set of life experiences applied, and as a result, we pay an opportunity cost—a cost in products not built, in designs not considered, in constraints not understood, in solutions not offered, in processes not invented.” He said that members of a diverse group each experience life differently and that these differences in experience constitute the “gene pool from which creativity springs.” And in the very same vein, new NAE president Charles Vest of MIT has said, “a diverse technical workforce … is more likely to conceive, design and develop products, processes, and systems that perform well in the marketplace.” What is diversity? Why is diversity important? Answering these questions is not a simple matter. Part of the reason is that the word, diversity, has become overworked and misused. It is my thesis that diversity should mean much more than numbers and percentages, that it should not be limited to matters of race and ethnicity and that, importantly, the presence of diversity should not be construed to mean that there exists the presence of equity. By constraining the definition of diversity to apply only to the racial and ethnic mix of individuals in an organization—even if issues of age, sexual orientation, gender, disability, religion, national origin and economic class are taken into consideration—overlooks many other important considerations such as the range of ideas and intellectual concepts subject to discussion, debate and inquiry. Diversity is often used synonymously with pluralism. The two concepts are quite different. I think of diversity, the mere presence of variety, as not much more than a condition in which passivity often prevails whereas pluralism represents a dynamic atmosphere of collaboration and inclusion. Diversity in the absence of equity is meaningless, a hollow promise, a cruel hoax. Our goal must be a larger one. In the field of mathematics, one encounters the concepts of necessity and sufficiency. Mathematicians deal with propositions that are required or necessary in order for a truth to be upheld but that are in and of themselves not sufficient for a theory or postulate to be declared true. Some other proposition or fact must be present in order to declare the existence of truth or proof. Such is the case, I argue, with diversity. If we accept as our goal the creation and sustenance of culturally pluralistic and inclusive institutions that affirm the presence of difference throughout and that value excellence at all levels of the institution—in its students, faculty, staff, administration, governing board, curriculum, student services, social organizations and mission—then we need to do more than achieve and celebrate diversity. To be certain, an institution cannot achieve what I have just described without the presence of diversity. Diversity is necessary but it is not sufficient, by itself, to produce the desired result. In other words, the mere presence of diversity does not assure the presence of equality of opportunity. Something else has to be present besides mere diversity in order to reach that goal. Something within the institution has to be in place. That something, in my opinion, consists of two things. One, the institution must have the will and the capacity to change in order to address fully the educational and socialization needs of its increasingly more diverse population. Two, there must be an unwavering commitment to excellence. Not the ersatz, narrow view of excellence found in most of those publications that have anointed themselves to be the judges of America’s best colleges and universities but the kind of excellence that can best be measured in the quality of outcomes. The favorite argument of those who fear diversity is that it represents a diminution of an emphasis on quality and the pursuit of excellence as a consequence of its focus on equality and the presence of equity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Excellence cannot be narrowly defined, measured and compared by the use of SATs and GREs no matter how hard we try. We must focus on equality of opportunity and not mere diversity. I am becoming increasingly suspicious of the notion that pursuing and achieving diversity should continue to be the topic that occupies so much of our attention. It has, I contend, mesmerized us to the extent that it has masked from our view what we really should be discussing. That is, how do we transform our educational institutions, our industrial corporations and our governmental agencies into pluralistic and inclusive organizations that are characterized by equity and excellence? That is the message that I believe we should send to the presidential candidates. |
 |
National Engineers Week Foundation
|