Diversity Discourse as Racialized and Double-edged: Findings from a National Survey

Abstract

The keyword diversity is common in contemporary U.S. culture, but it can refer to many forms of difference; questions remain about the meaning and consequences of “diversity,” especially regarding whether this concept is commonly recognized in the American imagination and how diversity discourse relates to racial hierarchy in the United States. We use nationally representative survey data to address these questions through a critical race theory lens. First, we conduct factor analysis upon three different items that ask participants to evaluate or characterize “diversity.” These three items are well-predicted by a single latent factor, and this factor proves distinct from possible confounders such as prejudicial attitudes, misgivings about immigration and demographic change, and color-blind racial attitudes. Second, we see that diversity attitudes have a double-edged relationship with other attitudes that relate to racial hierarchy in the United States. Using regressions, we find that positivity toward diversity predicts equitable, non-racist stances on several race-related attitudes such as support for affirmative action and acknowledgment of white privilege. On the contrary, positivity toward diversity is also associated with core cultural ideologies which normalize racial inequality and implicitly denigrate minorities, such as color-blind racism and meritocracy. Thus, our study establishes that a coherent and distinct recognition of diversity exists in the American imagination and that diversity discourse has a double-edged relationship with racial hierarchy.

Keywords

attitudes critical discourse diversity public opinion

Introduction

We analyze attitudes about “diversity” in the United States. The keyword diversity was popularized in the late 1970s and 1980s as colleges and corporations rebranded their race-conscious policies in the face of politicized backlash (Berrey 2011, 2015; Leong 2012). Today, there is a widespread diversity discourse in the United States. Americans are generally very receptive of the keyword and often use diversity language to showcase their non-racist ideals and appreciation of racial difference (Burke 2012; Marvasti and McKinney 2011; Warikoo 2016; Woody 2020). Yet, deeper exploration finds that diversity discourse can be valorized, deployed, and leveraged in ways that insulate racial hierarchy. Drawing on critical race theory, research has shown that beliefs and attitudes about diversity can justify an unequal racial status quo and reify cultural ideologies that normalize racial inequality (Bell and Hartmann 2007; Berrey 2015; Embrick 2011; Mayorga-Gallo 2019). “Diversity” is an important keyword (Williams 1976), and related discourse is highly relevant to the trajectory of racial politics (Omi and Winant 2015) and racial hierarchy (Delgado and Stefancic 2017; Elias and Feagin 2016) in the United States today. While informative and important, existing sociological literature about diversity discourse and racial hierarchy has mostly used small-sample research methods. Generalizing from such research requires more nationwide assessment and empirical establishment of key themes. Informed by critical race theory’s tradition of explicating the overt and implicit ways that cultural discourses relate to racial hierarchy, we analyze nationally representative survey data that measure everyday people’s attitudes about “diversity.”

Using factor analysis, we first test for a common recognition toward the concept of diversity in the American imagination. Such a shared cultural motif and orientation is often assumed in literature about diversity, but such logic needs representative, empirical verification. As the keyword diversity is highly flexible and suggestive of many forms of social and personal differences, Americans may not have a shared, coherent recognition about the keyword at all; it may mean something unique to everybody rather than being a commonly recognized concept. In addition, the term diversity may be seen as a signifier or serve as a proxy for other topics. Therefore, we test the coherence of three survey items that measure evaluations and characterizations of the term diversity, but frame the concept in dissimilar ways. We find that a single-factor strongly loads onto the three items. Then, additional factor analyses show that a two-factor solution is a better fit when modeling the diversity items in tandem with items measuring three possible confounders: prejudicial attitudes, immigration attitudes, and color-blind racial attitudes. Thus, despite the flexibility and hyper-inclusive nature of the word diversity, Americans seem to hold a shared recognition of this keyword as it is understood and functions in a discursive culture field. Importantly, this shared recognition is its own entity in the American imagination rather than being a proxy for other concepts.

Using regressions, the second part of our analysis considers how diversity discourse relates to other attitudes, beliefs, and ideologies about race and (in)equality in the United States. The embrace of diversity predicts outwardly equitable and non-racist attitudes, such as support for affirmative action and acknowledgment of white privilege. But, the embrace of diversity is also associated with beliefs that have been central to ongoing racial hierarchy in the post-Civil-Rights era, such as color-blind racism, meritocratic beliefs, and cultural norms that promote adherence to white-dominated morality and respectability politics. Overall, our study illustrates that diversity as a concept and a broader cultural discourse is deeply racialized and double-edged, serving simultaneously to both challenge and insulate racial hierarchy.

Our nationally representative study thus advances the critical sociological literature about diversity discourse by (1) empirically assessing the taken-for-granted assumption that Americans have a shared, coherent, and distinct recognition of the keyword “diversity” and (2) exploring how diversity discourse relates to racial hierarchy at the attitudinal level. Below, we present our literature review. We then describe our analytic strategy and our survey data. We present findings in two parts as described above. In our discussion, we consider this study’s key takeaways and contribution to the literature. We hope future work finds ways to strengthen diversity’s anti-racist ethos while interrogating its problematic connections to ideologies that insulate racial hierarchy.

Literature Review

Diversity Discourse in the United States

Diversity is an important keyword in American culture. The 1978 Supreme Court case Bakke v. University of California-Regents legitimized the pursuit of diversity as a constitutionally justifiable rationale for considering applicant race in college admissions (Berrey 2015; Carr 2018; Katznelson 2005; Leong 2012). Companies and colleges have since instituted policies and messages that champion the benefits of diversity for their organizations, their employees, and society at large; over decades, “diversity” language has been institutionalized and enshrined (Collins 2011; Edelman 2016; Warikoo 2016). Americans are generally positive toward diversity and view it as a benefit (Pew Research Center 2018), and diversity continues to be valorized and praised in many different social institutions and general culture (Berrey 2015; Marvasti and McKinney 2011; Underhill 2019). The popularity of diversity discourse is evidenced by how it has mostly supplanted “multiculturalism” as the language of celebrating racial and ethnic difference in the United States (Hartmann 2015; Kivisto 2012). Diversity policies, management, and trainings have become a large, profitable industry (Dobbin, Schrage, and Kalev 2015; Edelman 2016). Diversity thus exists as a keyword (Williams 1976) that is basically hegemonic (Gramsci [1927] 1992), both in terms of its widespread popularity and how it functions to normalize and legitimate established, status quo understandings of identity, difference, and belonging in virtually all major institutions and general American culture itself.

Recent research points to flexibility, vagueness, and hyper-inclusiveness in popular American diversity discourse. The keyword diversity is deployed by organizations and people in ways that include a myriad of different social and personal differences. Corporate diversity language can emphasize race or other marginalized identities, but many business policies and employees speak to a very inclusive understanding of the individual differences that make up diversity, even treating hobbies and personal interests as forms of diversity (e.g., Collins 2011; Edelman 2016). Similarly, diversity projects or initiatives in colleges can differ between and within schools; there is inconsistent attention to marginalized identities as opposed to general celebration of difference (e.g., Marvasti and McKinney 2011; Warikoo 2016). When asked to define or name “diversity,” Americans speak to a wide, inclusive, umbrella-understanding of the social differences that belong under this mantle (Bell and Hartmann 2007; Berrey 2015). Diversity can refer to differences in race, class, and gender, but it can also signify differences between dog-owners and cat-owners.

In addition, the keyword diversity may be seen as a proxy for other concepts and beliefs; we consider three attitudinal nexuses that may confound how Americans think and talk about diversity. First, attitudes about diversity may simply reflect prejudicial beliefs toward minority racial and/or religious groups. People who express discomfort or misgivings about increasing diversity in their community or organization also express negative stereotypes and coded prejudices about minorities (e.g., Burke 2012; Hoekstra and Gerteis 2019; Marvasti and McKinney 2011; Mayorga-Gallo 2014). Second, diversity attitudes may reflect hostility about misgivings about demographic change and immigration, particularly non-white immigration. Research shows that Americans averse to the idea of a majority-minority nation are more likely to express negative immigration attitudes (Craig and Richeson 2014; Craig, Rucker, and Richeson 2018; Gallagher 2014). In research about locales experiencing diversification, discriminatory attitudes about immigrants can manifest when participants discuss their ambivalence about diversity however conceived (e.g., Aptekar 2015; Hoekstra and Gerteis 2019; Voyer 2013). Third, the keyword diversity could be seen as of post-racial beliefs or color-blind racism (Bonilla-Silva 2003). Several authors have discussed how diversity discourse forces attention to racial difference yet ironically obscures attention to racial inequality and thus reifies post-racial ideology (e.g., Bell and Hartmann 2007; Berrey 2015; Herring and Henderson 2011; Petts 2020).

Despite the breadth of difference included in diversity discourse and the term’s definitional flexibility, diversity discourse is deeply racialized (Omi and Winant 2015) and has many implications for racial hierarchy in the United States (Bell and Hartmann 2007; Berrey 2015; Mayorga-Gallo 2019). The pursuit of diversity continues to be a defining legal logic of race-based policies in admission and hiring; this affects how such policies do or do not address racial inequalities (Dobbin et al. 2015; Edelman 2016; Leong 2012). In settings such as churches, parks, schools, and neighborhoods, diversity discourse shapes how people talk about racial difference in their locale and community (Aptekar 2015; Barron 2016; Burke 2012; Douds 2021; Hoekstra and Gerteis 2019; Mayorga-Gallo 2014). A body of experimental research has studied how attitudes about diversity relate to racial identity, beliefs about racial inequality, and opinions about race-based policy; findings often show that racial attitudes and racial identity are associated with how participants respond to different items about diversity (e.g., Bauman, Trawalter, and Unzueta 2014; Knowles et al. 2014; Unzueta, Knowles, and Ho 2012).

Critical race theory studies interrogate how race continues to be foundational, if often obscured or hidden, in aspects of social life, and how the mutual constitution of racial hierarchy and social organization persists even after gains and victories for racial equality (Delgado and Stefancic 2017). In line with critical race theory traditions, our goal is to shed further light on how, despite its seemingly non-racist ethos, diversity discourse is racialized and relates to racial hierarchy in the United States. Much of the existing literature has explored this through interrogating the confluence between diversity discourse and post-racial ideology. Following Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (2003), color-blind racism and post-racial ideology have been important concepts in sociology and critical race theory, highlighting how ostensibly neutral, race-blind statements such as “I don’t see color” actually obscure racial inequality and reify white supremacy (Bonilla-Silva and Dietrich 2011; see also Burke 2017; Doane 2017). Everyday diversity discourse frames racial difference in a rosy, sanitized manner that downplays contemporary racial inequality, which can reify post-racial ideology (e.g., Bell and Hartmann 2007; Berrey 2015; Herring and Henderson 2011; Petts 2020; Ray et al. 2017).

Beliefs about diversity can also relate to meritocratic ideals about individual achievement and cultural messages about proper, moral values. In conjunction with color-blind racism, these core cultural ideologies have also shaped the evolution and durability of racial hierarchy in the post-Civil-Rights era (Crenshaw et al. 1995; Elias and Feagin 2016). The general valorization of meritocracy and the celebration of self-made individuals can normalize the belief that racial inequality is driven by non-whites’ personal shortcomings and failures (Bonilla-Silva 2015; Croll 2013; Gould 1999; Hochschild 1996; Katznelson 2005). Similarly, cultural norms about moral behavior, proper values, and obeying the law often implicitly denigrate minority communities for a supposed lack of morality. Such stereotypes and characterizations have fostered punitive state policies and everyday cultural discourses that maintain racial inequality (Kelley 1997; Ladson-Billings 2017; Rios 2011; Soss, Fording, and Schram 2011).

In the diversity discourse literature, participants who are favorable toward diversity often qualify such views with individualist ideals about who deserves to be admitted to college or hired in business. In many participants’ eyes, diversity policy must not threaten or undermine meritocratic standards for admission or employment (e.g., Berrey 2015; Embrick 2011; Moore and Bell 2011; Warikoo 2016). Some participants hint or outright say that their tolerance for racial diversity in their organizations or communities is contingent on how minorities behave, act, and conform in these predominantly white spaces, showcasing how diversity discourse can coincide with cultural beliefs that characterize minorities as culturally immoral and deviant (e.g., Burke 2012; Hoekstra and Gerteis 2019; Marvasti and McKinney 2011; Mayorga-Gallo 2014; Warikoo 2016). Thus, despite its seemingly anti-racist nature, diversity discourse upholds racial hierarchy in several ways.

Research Design

Research Objectives and Analytic Strategy

As described in the literature review, the keyword diversity is widespread in American culture, but it is highly flexible and vague. Scholarly study of diversity discourse has shown that general celebration and valorization of diversity in the United States can signal anti-racist ideals yet also uphold racial hierarchy. In line with critical and sociological research about diversity discourse, we analyze nationally representative survey data with two primary goals.

Part 1 of our findings section explores if Americans have a shared recognition of the keyword diversity. Sociological literature about diversity discourse often assumes the existence of a shared, cultural understanding of diversity in the American imagination, which we assess for both methodological and theoretical reasons. Methodologically, most of the research cited above is based on small-N methods such as interviews, participant observation, and small-sample experiments. More importantly, on a theoretical level, are we absolutely certain that a shared recognition of the keyword diversity exists in the American imagination? Given the flexibility, inclusiveness, and ill-defined nature of the term itself, Americans may not have a shared cultural understanding of this keyword at all. We also consider whether Americans simply see the keyword diversity as a proxy or signal for other concepts.

Second, we consider how diversity discourse can both challenge and uphold racial hierarchy in the United States, inspired by a critical race theory tradition of unveiling and illustrating the racialized dimensions of everyday cultural beliefs, attitudes, and discourse (Crenshaw et al. 1995; Delgado and Stefancic 2017). Accounting for sociodemographic factors, we consider how diversity attitudes predict race-related attitudes such as prejudice and attitudes about affirmative action; such items are commonly studied in literature about racial attitudes in the United States (Bobo et al. 2012; Bonilla-Silva and Dietrich 2011; Hunt 2007). We then consider how diversity attitudes relate to cultural beliefs that have been interrogated for upholding racial hierarchy and normalizing racial inequality in the United States (Bonilla-Silva 2003; Elias and Feagin 2016; Kelley 1997). This is informed by research and literature on topics such as color-blindness, meritocracy, and cultural norms about moral behavior.

Data

We analyze the 2014 Boundaries in the American Mosaic (BAM) survey, a nationally representative survey contracted through Growth from Knowledge (GfK) with funding from the National Science Foundation, fielded during a two-week period in early 2014. This survey has several items that measure attitudes about race, religion, diversity, and tolerance in American life. Participants were selected from GfK’s nationally representative panel sampling frame, which is based on recruiting respondents in English- and Spanish-speaking households via probability-based random address sampling from U.S. postal service records. Participants were recruited with direct mail, telephone follow-up, and online registration (Couper 2017). GfK supplies laptop and Internet access for households lacking resources necessary for survey completion. Participants were compensated with a cash incentive or credit for computer and Internet access.

The recruitment rate for this primary sample was 13.9 percent, and the profile rate was 64.1 percent. The BAM sample was drawn from panel members via a probability proportional to size (PPS) weighted sampling approach; 4,353 people were contacted, leading to 2,521 valid responses and completion rate of 57.9 percent. Thus, based on the GfK’s recruitment and profile rates for the panel sampling frame, the cumulative response rate was 5.2 percent (Callegaro and DiSogra 2008; DiSogra, Callegaro, and Hendarwan 2009). GfK included respondents’ Federal Information Processing (FIPS) county code; research assistants used this information to generate indicators of respondents’ county-level context from the American Community Survey (ACS). The BAM sampling strategy was designed to slightly oversample non-white participants to ensure the representation of racial and ethnic minorities within the survey sample. Our analyses are weighted to reflect the actual population of the United States.

Key Items: Diversity in the United States

Three items in the BAM ask participants for moralistic evaluations or characterizations of diversity in the United States, but each frames the keyword differently. Our study is based on analyzing these three items, which are all coded so that higher scores reflect positivity and a greater embrace of diversity.

The first key item reads, “Here is a list of things that people may think are important in the United States. Please indicate how important YOU think each of these is”; a following statement reads, “We value racial diversity.” Participants selected one of four responses: “very important,” “somewhat important,” “not very important,” and “not at all.” This item is referred to as Racial-diversity in this study.

The second reads, “The United States is one of the most socially and culturally diverse nations in the world. Do you see this as mostly a strength, mostly a weakness, or equally a strength and a weakness?” with five responses: “mostly a strength,” “somewhat a strength,” “equally a strength and a weakness,” “somewhat a weakness,” and “mostly a weakness.” This is referred to as Social-cultural-diversity in this study.

Our third measure is an ordinal indicator of positive, neutral, or negative assessments of diversity. This is based on transforming another item in the BAM. In the original survey, respondents received nine statements in a single item and were asked to select one that “best describes your understanding of diversity.” The statements were listed in random order on participants’ surveys. In our analysis, participants who chose a subjectively positive response were grouped together, those who chose a neutral response were grouped together, and those who chose a subjectively negative response were grouped together. Respondents received a score of 1 if they selected one of the following responses: “it makes life more interesting,” “it helps us learn tolerance,” “it makes us who we are as a nation,” and “it brings different perspectives, which helps us to solve problems.” Participants received a score of 2 if they selected the neutral response, “something else.” Participants received a score of 3 if they selected one of the following negative responses: “It can be uncomfortable or disorienting to deal with diversity,” “it can lead to intolerance,” “it can create division and conflict,” and “it can make it difficult for us to get things done.” This item is referred to as Diversity-characterizations in this study. Thus, our coding scheme aggregates some of the response categories into larger categories, creating a three-level item that measures the positivity of respondents’ characterizations of diversity.

Analytic Procedure and Other Measures

All analyses were completed in STATA. We use iterated principal axis factor analysis in all factor analyses. We base all factor analyses on polychoric correlation matrixes, as several items analyzed are ordinal and/or have skewed distributions. To verify that items analyzed are amenable to factor analysis, we present standardized interitem correlation, standardized Cronbach’s alpha, Bartlett’s test of sphericity, and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test for sample adequacy. We present rotated factor loadings based on oblimin oblique rotations; this considers that any multiple-factor solution likely contains correlated factors. Therefore, we do not present factor correlations for parsimony, but we examined these and found no results of note; results are available on request.

Part 1 of our Findings uses factor analysis to test if Americans have a shared recognition or understanding toward the concept of diversity. If that is the case, we should see a one-factor solution for the three key diversity items. If we do not find a one-factor solution, that means that individual participants’ responses toward the three key diversity items are relatively unalike and dissimilar, which would suggest that Americans do not have a coherent understanding or shared recognition toward the concept of diversity. We perform this procedure for the total sample and for racial sub-samples.

Next, to test whether Americans see the concept of diversity as a proxy for other concepts, Part 1 also presents results from three more factor analyses conducted upon the total sample. We analyze the coherence between the key diversity items and participants’ responses to other measures. If a one-factor solution emerges, this would indicate that Americans see diversity as a proxy for other concepts. If a two-factor solution emerges, this would indicate that Americans do not see diversity as a proxy for other concepts. We test three potential confounders: prejudicial attitudes, immigration attitudes, and color-blind racial attitudes.¹

We consider prejudicial attitudes with a series of items that asks about participants’ views regarding various minority groups in the United States. The introduction reads, “Here is a list of potential problems in American society. For each problem, please mark all of the groups that contribute to the problem.” The list of problems reads, “They are a threat to order and public safety,” “They don’t share my morals or values,” “They take jobs and resources that should go to others, “They are dependent on welfare and government assistance,” “They are intolerant of others,” “They want to take over our political institutions,” and “They don’t contribute to my community.” To measure prejudicial attitudes, we create a score based on summing responses regarding blacks, Hispanics, Asian Americans, and Muslims.² The items are reverse-coded so that lower scores reflect greater prejudice; our rationale is that positivity toward diversity would be related to higher scores on such reverse-coded prejudice items.

We consider four items that measure attitudes toward immigration. First, “recent immigrants” are another group listed in the series of items described above; we create a reverse-coded item wherein lower scores reflect negativity toward recent immigrants. Then, the second asks if “the United States should do more to limit immigration,” with responses on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree); higher scores reflect greater pro-immigration attitudes. The third item reads, “People fleeing persecution in other countries should have the opportunity to seek refuge and come live in the United States,” with four responses ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree; we coded this item so that higher scores reflect greater support for amnesty. The fourth item asks about funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with three responses: fully fund, fund at reduced levels, and not fund at all; we coded this item so that lower scores reflect greater support for funding ICE.

We draw upon three items that measure color-blind racial attitudes. The first asks if “race no longer matters” in the United States. The second asks if “racism is or will soon be a thing of the past.” The third reads, “For the most part, I’m color-blind, that is, I don’t see race.” Each item has four possible responses: strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, and strongly disagree. We coded these items so that higher scores reflect greater color-blind racial attitudes.

In Part 2, we use regressions to consider how diversity discourse in the United States can both challenge and uphold racial hierarchy. To this end, Part 1 concludes with creating a new measure, “Diversity Attitudes.” This measure is based off predicted latent factor scores from the one-factor solution that loads onto the key diversity items. Each individual participant has a numerical score for Diversity Attitudes, with higher scores indicating greater favorability in how an individual participant responds to the three key diversity items described above. Thus, Diversity Attitudes measure positivity and favorability toward the concept of diversity, and it is more granular and comprehensive than any of the three key items alone. Based on this measure, Part 2 presents a combination of linear and ordered-logistic regressions; all regressions were conducted with robust standard errors to account for heteroscedasticity. We considered potential issues of missing data³ and co-linearity.⁴

First, we regress predicted diversity factor scores onto sociodemographic controls. This begins with participant Race, analyzed as a factor item via dummy codes for white non-Hispanic (the referent group), black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, Other, or 2+ races. We use a binary measure of Gender (man = 1). We use categorical measures for Education (higher scores represent more education), Age (higher scores represent older age), and Income (higher scores represent more income). We consider political attitudes based on a categorical measure dubbed Conservatism (higher scores represent more conservatism; lower scores represent more liberalism). Based on county characteristics derived from FIPS and ACS benchmarks, we provide standardized measures of respondents’ county population and the proportion of non-white residents in respondents’ counties.

Then, Part 2 considers several race-related attitudes as dependent variables in regressions intended to illustrate how positivity toward diversity relates to other attitudes implicated in racial hierarchy in the United States, net of controls.⁵ We make a standardized index from the above-described measures of prejudice, not including prejudice to recent immigrants; reverse-coded so that lower scores represent more prejudice, Overall Prejudice has a standardized interitem correlation of .547 with an alpha of .829. We use the measure Support for Immigration as a dependent variable to consider immigration attitudes. We then include two new ordinal items. The first item asks about “affirmative action in colleges” with three response categories; those who support this policy are coded 2, those who report no opinion are coded 1, and those who oppose the policy are coded 0. The second item asks if “Whites have lots of advantages in American society today” with four responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores reflect greater acknowledgment of white privilege.

We consider how diversity attitudes relate to color-blind racial attitudes based on a regression for each of the three items described above regarding color-blind racial attitudes. Then, we consider meritocratic beliefs with an item that asks participants how much they agree that “the American dream is alive for me and my children”; responses range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Finally, we measure attitudes about morality and values with two items. The first asks if it is important that Americans “respect our political institutions and laws,” and the second asks if it is important Americans “share a basic set of moral values.” Each of these items has responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) and 4 (strongly agree).

See Table 1 for summary statistics of all measures.

Table 1.

Summary Statistics, All Measures.

BAM Survey Items	Sample Size	M	SD	Min.	Max.
Key items: Measuring positivity to diversity
Racial-diversity	2,507	3.412	0.781	1	4
Social-cultural-diversity	2,479	3.675	1.083	1	5
Diversity-characterizations	2,456	2.507	0.825	1	3
Diversity attitudes (Latent: Predicted factor scores)	2,443	3.328	0.786	1.049	4.255
Other items—Sociodemographic measures
Racial identity (weighted frequencies)
White, non-Hispanic (referent group)	1,555
Black, non-Hispanic	427
Other, non-Hispanic	65
Hispanic	428
2+ races	46
Gender (man = 1)	2,521	0.482	0.500	0	1
Education	2,521	10.041	2.179	1	14
Conservatism	2,521	3.731	2.051	1	7
Income	2,521	11.874	4.500	1	19
Age (four categories)	2,521	2.582	1.090	1	4
County-population (standardized)	2,514	0.000	1.024	–0.599	4.527
County-nonwhite-proportion (standardized)	2,513	–0.041	0.995	–1.625	3.254
Other items analyzed: Attitudinal measures
Black prejudice (reverse-coded)	2,521	6.044	1.584	0	7
Hispanic prejudice (reverse-coded)	2,521	6.218	1.458	0	7
Asian American prejudice (reverse-coded)	2,521	6.613	1.011	0	7
Muslim prejudice (reverse-coded)	2,521	5.707	1.837	0	7
Immigrant prejudice (reverse-coded)	2,521	6.090	1.502	0	7
Support for immigration	2,441	2.111	0.0964	1	4
Immigrants should learn English (reverse-coded)	2,448	1.601	0.813	1	4
Fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement (reverse-coded)	2,450	1.635	.0.678	1	3
I’m color-blind; I don’t see race	2,451	2.932	0.869	1	4
Racism is in the past	2,449	2.118	0.862	1	4
Race no longer matters	2,446	2.004	0.821	1	4
Overall prejudice—Index (linear; reverse-coded)	2,521	–0.006	0.857	–3.783	0.616
Supports affirmative action (ordinal)	2,441	2.086	0.846	1	3
Acknowledges white privilege (ordinal)	2,437	2.919	0.898	1	4
The American dream is alive (ordinal)	2,478	2.585	0.902	1	4
Important to respect the law (ordinal)	2,503	3.499	0.688	1	4
Important to share moral values (ordinal)	2,507	3.463	0.715	1	4

Note. BAM = Boundaries in the American Mosaic.

Findings

Part 1

Table 2 presents polychoric correlations and factorability measures for the three key diversity items. As two items have less than five categories, we understand limitations of our factor analysis. Nevertheless, Table 2 shows a standardized Cronbach’s alpha of .598 and a significant Bartlett’s test with KMO of .616. The three key diversity items meet minimum standards for factor analysis, especially because our goal is to explore whether the key diversity items exhibit general coherence, not to validate or modify industry-standard research instruments. Results show that Factor 1 has an eigenvalue of 1.45. Factor 2, however, has a small eigenvalue of 0.020. Also, Factor 1 accounts for over 98 percent of explained variance. Thus, a one-factor solution is a strong fit for the key diversity items.

Table 2.

Factor Analysis of Key Diversity Items.

Polychoric correlation matrix (full sample)		Racial-diversity	Social-cultural-diversity	Diversity-characterizations
Racial-diversity		1
Social-cultural-diversity		0.39838231	1
Diversity-characterizations		0.37682049	0.597385	1
Factorability (full sample)
Standardized interitem correlation = .332; standardized Cronbach’s α = .598
Bartlett’s test of sphericity: Coef. of determination = 0.722; χ² = 794.509, df = 3, p < .001, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin = .616
Factor analysis results: Eigenvalues and explained variance (full sample)		Eigenvalue	Proportion Explained Variance	Cum. Explained Variance
Factor 1		1.45205	0.9868	0.9868
Factor 2		0.01946	0.0132	1.0001
Factor 3		–0.0001	–0.0001	1
Rotated loadings, oblique rotation (full sample)		Factor 1	Factor 2	Communality
Racial-diversity		0.4741	0.1401	0.2726
Social-cultural-diversity		0.7835	0.0151	0.6191
Diversity-characterizations		0.7699	–0.0459	0.5799
χ² = 1,509.49, df = 3, p < .001, n = 2,443
Racial sub-samples: Eigenvalues of factor solutions for key diversity items
White Participants’ Eigenvalues		Black Participants’ Eigenvalues		Hispanic Participants’ Eigenvalues
Factor 1	1.51243	Factor 1	1.24372	Factor 1	1.29031
Factor 2	0.01428	Factor 2	0.02757	Factor 2	0.04508
Factor 3	–0.00009	Factor 3	–0.00010	Factor 3	–0.00011
χ² = 1,090.20, df = 3, p < .001, n = 1,519		χ² = 186.44, df = 3, p < .001, n = 410		χ² = 197.66, df = 3, p < .001, n = 406

Table 2 also presents rotated factor loadings and communalities: Factor 1 has much higher loadings than Factor 2, further indicating the one-factor solution is a good fit. Note, however, that while Factor 1 loads consistently onto Social-cultural-diversity and Diversity-characterizations, its loading is reduced for Racial-diversity. In addition, the communality of Racial-diversity is lower than the other two items. These details show that the factor solution is not an absolute, ironclad fit, and suggest that Racial-diversity is the misfit of the three key items. But, we would expect reduced loadings here, as this item has the least variation and most skew of the three key items. And, while the loading of Factor 1 on Racial-diversity is reduced, it is still substantial. Table 2 also presents eigenvalues for factor analysis of the three key diversity items for racial sub-samples of whites, blacks, and Hispanics. Although the eigenvalues differ slightly, we see that a one-factor solution consistently emerges for the racial sub-samples. Thus, Americans of different racial groups have a similar shared recognition of the concept of diversity; this pattern is not limited to a particular racial group.⁶

Overall, Table 2 demonstrates that a one-factor solution is a good fit for predicting these three key items about diversity. Even though the three key items are quite unalike and do not have parallel-wording or response categories, a one-factor solution emerges. Thus, our first major finding is that Americans have a coherent, shared cultural recognition that loads onto their evaluations of diversity in the United States. Despite the flexibility and inclusiveness of the word, the keyword is indeed tapping into something shared in the American imagination.

But, what exactly is this common recognition? Do Americans hold a distinct and unique understanding of the keyword diversity, or are their attitudes about this keyword simply driven by attitudes toward potential confounders? To address this, Table 3 presents results from factor analyses comparing diversity attitudes with prejudicial attitudes, immigration attitudes, and color-blind racial attitudes.

Table 3.

“Diversity” versus Confounders: Iterated Principal Factor Analysis (Oblique Rotations).

“Diversity” versus Prejudicial Attitudes
Standardized interitem correlation: .301; standardized Cronbach’s α: .721Bartlett’s test of sphericity: Coef. of determination = 0.152; χ² = 4,587.496, df = 21, p < .001; KMO = .799
Factor	Eigenvalues	Explained Variance	Cum. Explained Variance	Rotated Loadings (Oblique)	Factor 1	Factor 2
Factor 1	3.18796	0.6988	0.6988	Black prejudice	0.8644	–0.0072
Factor 2	1.12089	0.2457	0.9445	Hispanic prejudice	0.9083	0.0382
Factor 3	0.13298	0.0291	0.9736	Asian American prejudice	0.7951	–0.0121
Factor 4	0.09753	0.0214	0.995	Muslim prejudice	0.7278	0.0362
Factor 5	0.01642	0.0036	0.9986	Racial-diversity	0.0193	0.3539
Factor 5	0.00651	0.0014	1	Social-cultural-diversity	0.0048	0.7711
Factor 7	–0.00022	0	1	Diversity-characterizations	0.0089	0.7803
n = 2,443; χ² = 7,945.47, df = 21, p < .001
“Diversity” versus Immigration Attitudes
Standardized interitem correlation = .236; standardized Cronbach’s α = .650Bartlett’s test of sphericity: Coef. of determination = 0.504; χ² = 1,631.060, df = 15, p < .001; KMO = .727
Factor	Eigenvalues	Explained Variance	Cum. Explained Variance	Rotated Loadings (Oblique)	Factor 1	Factor 2
Factor 1	2.35893	0.665	0.665	Immigrant prejudice	0.5644	0.051
Factor 2	1.05364	0.297	0.962	Support for immigration	0.800.	0.038
Factor 3	0.06571	0.0185	0.9806	Immigrants should learn English	0.8183	–0.0174
Factor 4	0.0372	0.0105	0.991	Fund ICE	0.4345	–0.052
Factor 5	0.02938	0.0083	0.9993	Racial-diversity	0.0056	0.3124
Factor 5	0.00258	0.0007	1.0001	Social-cultural-diversity	0.0286	0.7619
Factor 7	–0.00019	–0.0001	1	Diversity-characterizations	–0.0096	0.7831
n = 2,373; χ² = 4,475.42; df = 21; p < .001
“Diversity” versus Color-blind Racial Attitudes
Standardized interitem correlation = .131; standardized Cronbach’s α = .549Bartlett’s test of sphericity: Coef. of determination = 0.396; χ² = 2,214.134, df = 15, p < .001; KMO = .600
Factor	Eigenvalues	Explained Variance	Cum. Explained Variance	Rotated Loadings (Oblique)	Factor 1	Factor 2
Factor 1	1.67973	0.4677	0.4677	I’m color-blind	0.3086	–0.089
Factor 2	1.42743	0.3975	0.8652	Racism is in the past	0.8106	0.0191
Factor 3	0.41809	0.1164	0.9816	Race no longer matters	0.8158	0.0156
Factor 4	0.06513	0.0181	0.9997	Racial-diversity	–0.1445	0.1787
Factor 5	0.00117	0.0003	1	Social-cultural-diversity	0.0888	0.7105
Factor 5	–0.00016	0	1	Diversity-characterizations	–0.0297	0.8007
n = 2,393; χ² = 3,574.54, df = 15, p < .001

Note. KMO = Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin; ICE = Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The factorability measures in Table 3 are acceptable for the purposes of this study. Eigenvalues and explained variance show that a two-factor solution is a strong fit for diversity versus prejudicial attitudes, immigration attitudes, and color-blind racial attitudes. The rotated factor loadings further corroborate the two-factor solutions; one factor loads well onto the diversity items while the other factor loads well onto prejudicial attitudes, immigration attitudes, and color-blind racial attitudes. These results establish that participants’ thoughts about the key diversity items are distinct from these possible confounders.

As a supplementary analysis, we performed confirmatory factor analyses based on structural equation modeling to corroborate the findings in Table 3. First, we tested how a one-factor solution predicts diversity items and prejudicial items. We then tested how a two-factor solution predicts these items, arranging the latent factors so that one loads onto diversity items and the other loads onto prejudicial items; the model accounted for covariance between the two latent factors. We repeated this procedure for diversity versus immigration attitudes, then for diversity versus color-blind racial attitudes. Fit-statistics across the models consistently improved when moving from a one-factor to a two-factor solution; results are available on request. This further proves that Americans recognize diversity as distinct from potential confounders.

Overall, Part 1 empirically illustrates that Americans have a shared recognition toward diversity, and this recognition is distinct from potential confounders. Our factor analyses have not necessarily established the granular details of whatever is motivating responses to the keyword diversity, but we have found that such a motivator exists, and that it is not simply a proxy for prejudicial, immigration, and color-blind racial attitudes. Based on the latent factor that loads onto the key diversity items in the first factor analysis presented in Table 2, we create Diversity Attitudes, thus giving each participant a predicted factor score. Figure 1 provides a histogram and summary statistics of this measure.

Figure 1.

Participants’ diversity attitudes (predicted factor scores).

The predicted factor scores range from 1.049 to 4.255, with a mean of 3.366 and standard deviation of 0.772. The distribution has a pronounced left-skew of 0.670 and kurtosis of 2.712. Overall, a majority of respondents have a predicted factor score indicating favorability toward diversity, in line with general positivity toward diversity in the United States.

Part 2

What do diversity attitudes do? How do they relate to attitudes which have implications for racial hierarchy? In the findings below, we treat Diversity Attitudes as a measure of individuals’ embrace of the diversity discourse within regression models presented in Tables 4 and 5. After testing how sociodemographic controls predict diversity attitudes, we test how controls and diversity attitudes predict (1) standard race-related attitudes and (2) core cultural ideologies associated with racial domination and continued reproduction of racial inequalities in the contemporary United States.

Table 4.

Predicting Diversity Attitudes and Predicting Race-related Attitudes.

Independent Variables	Diversity Attitudes (Predicted Factor Scores; Linear)	Overall Prejudice (Index; Reverse-coded; Linear)	Supports Immigration (Ordinal)	Supports Affirmative Action (Ordinal)	Acknowledges White Privilege (Ordinal)
Diversity attitudes (predicted factor scores)		0.293*** (0.025)	0.703*** (0.059)	0.576*** (0.058)	0.472*** (0.059)
Race (white = referent)
Black (factor)	–0.028(0.045)	–0.044(0.051)	0.118(0.127)	0.824*** (0.127)	1.267*** (0.143)
Other (factor)	0.230** (0.093)	–0.093(0.116)	0.242(0.231)	0.600* (0.306)	0.327(0.214)
Hispanic (factor)	0.183*** (0.046)	0.060(0.047)	0.613*** (0.127)	0.646*** (0.127)	0.863*** (0.132)
2+ races (factor)	0.199(0.122)	–0.167(0.124)	–0.148(0.327)	0.311(0.314)	0.106(0.332)
Gender	–0.023(0.031)	–0.101*** (0.032)	–0.023(0.078)	–0.251*** (0.082)	–0.149* (0.079)
Education	0.066*** (0.008)	0.003(0.008)	0.115*** (0.024)	0.017(0.022)	0.118*** (0.023)
Conservatism	–0.088*** (0.008)	–0.042*** (0.008)	–0.183*** (0.020)	–0.238*** (0.022)	–0.172*** (0.020)
Income	0.005(0.004)	0.004(0.005)	0.006(0.011)	–0.014(0.011)	0.001(0.011)
Age	0.044*** (0.015)	–0.034** (0.016)	–0.165*** (0.037)	–0.049(0.039)	–0.052(0.037)
County-population (standardized)	0.010(0.015)	–0.001(0.016)	0.011(0.043)	0.028(0.047)	–0.013(0.044)
County-nonwhite-proportion (standardized)	0.026(0.018)	–0.002(0.020)	–0.035(0.046)	–0.033(0.050)	0.072(0.048)
Constant (Cut 1)	2.811*** (0.102)	–0.778*** (0.128)	1.637*** (0.341)	0.141(0.301)	–0.499(0.328)
Cut 2			3.514*** (0.349)	1.466*** (0.305)	1.205*** (0.323)
Cut 3			5.052*** (0.359)		3.252*** (0.330)
Observations	2,323	2,323	2,323	2,323	2,323
R² (pseudo-R²)	.104	.113	.075	.098	.085

Note. Robust standard errors in parentheses.

p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01 (two-tailed test).

Table 5.

Predicting Color-blind Racial Beliefs and Predicting Beliefs about Meritocracy and Morality.

Independent Variables	I’m Color-blind; I Don’t See Race (Ordinal)	Racism Is in the Past (Ordinal)	Race No Longer Matters (Ordinal)	The American Dream Is Alive (Ordinal)	Important to Share Moral Values (Ordinal)	Important to Respect the Law (Ordinal)
Diversity attitudes (predicted factor scores)	0.291*** (0.056)	0.299*** (0.055)	0.107* (0.058)	0.873*** (0.060)	0.306*** (0.059)	0.489*** (0.063)
Race (white = referent)
Black (factor)	–0.262* (0.138)	–0.478*** (0.137)	–0.816*** (0.132)	0.365*** (0.127)	–0.155(0.137)	–0.244* (0.141)
Other (factor)	–0.221(0.258)	0.112(0.222)	0.537** (0.267)	0.683** (0.268)	–0.173(0.268)	–0.495(0.313)
Hispanic (factor)	0.397*** (0.129)	0.184(0.135)	0.240* (0.131)	0.605*** (0.133)	0.035(0.135)	0.074(0.144)
2+ races (factor)	0.071(0.359)	0.071(0.335)	0.076(0.324)	–0.044(0.280)	0.083(0.357)	0.009(0.356)
Gender	–0.247*** (0.078)	0.046(0.077)	0.048(0.078)	0.113(0.078)	–0.164* (0.085)	–0.206** (0.088)
Education	–0.090*** (0.024)	–0.083*** (0.023)	–0.117*** (0.023)	–0.072*** (0.023)	–0.051** (0.025)	–0.020(0.025)
Conservatism	0.031(0.020)	0.031(0.019)	0.103*** (0.020)	–0.067*** (0.020)	0.102*** (0.022)	0.047** (0.023)
Income	–0.023** (0.011)	–0.006(0.011)	–0.014(0.011)	0.033*** (0.011)	0.018(0.011)	0.026** (0.012)
Age	0.001(0.038)	–0.168*** (0.038)	–0.064* (0.038)	0.025(0.038)	0.294*** (0.041)	0.383*** (0.043)
County-population (standardized)	–0.016(0.046)	0.013(0.044)	0.015(0.048)	0.042(0.044)	–0.002(0.049)	–0.012(0.050)
County-nonwhite-proportion (standardized)	–0.011(0.048)	–0.003(0.047)	–0.007(0.047)	0.075(0.047)	0.015(0.051)	0.133** (0.054)
Cut 1	–2.886*** (0.324)	–1.304*** (0.308)	–1.615*** (0.309)	0.463(0.321)	–2.235*** (0.401)	–1.342*** (0.392)
Cut 2	–1.183*** (0.316)	0.668** (0.307)	0.354(0.308)	2.280*** (0.326)	–0.766** (0.361)	–0.045(0.362)
Cut 3	0.732** (0.315)	2.413*** (0.315)	2.106*** (0.319)	4.549*** (0.337)	1.428*** (0.354)	2.310*** (0.355)
Observations	2,323	2,323	2,323	2,323	2,323	2,323
Pseudo-R²	.019	.017	.030	.069	.027	.047

Note. Robust standard errors in parentheses.

p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01 (two-tailed test).

The first column of Table 4 presents a regression model of how the sociodemographic controls predict diversity attitudes. Hispanic Americans are significantly more positive toward diversity than white Americans at the p < .001 level, and those in the “Other” category are slightly more positive toward diversity than white Americans at the p < .01 level. Increased education has a strong positive relationship with the embrace of diversity, while political conservatism has a strong negative relationship. Older Americans are more positive toward diversity. Gender, income, and county-level context do not prove strong predictors of diversity attitudes.

Table 4 also presents how diversity attitudes predict prejudice, immigration attitudes, support for affirmative action, and acknowledgment of white privilege. Overall, the embrace of diversity predicts ostensibly equitable, non-racist stances on these measures. A one-point increase in one’s predicted diversity factor score corresponds with a 0.293-point increase in anti-prejudice, a 0.703-point increase in immigration attitudes, a 0.576-point increase in support for affirmative action, and a 0.472-point increase in acknowledgment of white privilege. These are substantially large and significant coefficients, particularly given their small robust standard errors. Overall, diversity attitudes are associated with generally non-racist stances on these commonly studied race-related attitudes, in line with popular discourse and messages surrounding the keyword.

Table 5 presents results regarding how diversity attitudes predict subscription to cultural ideologies that obfuscate racial inequality, implicitly denigrate minorities, and insulate racial hierarchy. A one-point increase in one’s predicted factor score predicts a 0.209-point increase in proclaiming to not see race, a 0.299-point increase in stating that racism is in the past, and a 0.107-point increase in claiming that race no longer matters in the United States. Then, a one-point increase in diversity attitudes predicts a 0.873-point increase in agreeing that the American Dream is alive, a 0.306-point increase in saying it is important that Americans share moral values, and a 0.489-point increase in agreeing that it is important to respect the law. These are sizable, significant coefficients, evidenced by their small robust standard errors, except in the regression of Race No Longer Matters, which has a less-pronounced but significant p value.

Some sociodemographic controls exhibit significance in Tables 4 and 5. For example, education and conservatism are significant in most of the regressions. But, the key takeaways are the parallel patterns in how diversity attitudes function in the models across both tables. The embrace of diversity is connected with a generally equitable, non-racist stance on standard racial attitudes. But, the embrace of diversity is also connected with core ideologies that are intertwined with and reproductive of the dominant racial regime, such as color-blind racial beliefs, meritocratic ideals, and beliefs about the importance of proper behavior and morality. Thus, our second major empirical contribution is the illustration of how diversity discourse is double-edged with respect to racial hierarchy in the United States.

Discussion

Our study advances the diversity discourse literature by empirically exploring the keyword diversity through analysis of a nationally representative survey about race, religion, diversity, and tolerance in the United States. Based on a series of factor analyses, we find that Americans hold some shared cultural recognition of this otherwise ill-defined, multifaceted keyword. Importantly, this recognition is distinct from potential confounders. The predicted factor scores for diversity attitudes show that Americans are generally positive toward diversity, reflective of celebratory diversity discourse in the United States. Based on regressions and in line with critical race theory traditions, our study considers the racialized nature of diversity discourse by testing how diversity attitudes relate to attitudes implicated in racial hierarchy in the United States. Net of controls, positive diversity attitudes predict ostensibly non-racist stances on standard racial attitudes, such as support for affirmative action. But, positive diversity attitudes also predict color-blind racial attitudes, meritocratic beliefs, and cultural beliefs about morality that can normalize racial inequality. Thus, while the keyword diversity is inclusive of many forms of difference in the United States, the functions and implications of diversity discourse are deeply racialized.

Our first research objective was to test a taken-for-granted assumption in the literature, that is, the logic that Americans have a shared recognition of the keyword diversity that is distinct from potential confounders. Of course, our findings do not necessarily mean that all Americans have a uniform, identical understanding of what diversity is; research has shown that detailed definitions and thoughts about this concept can vary wildly and include many aspects of difference (Bell and Hartmann 2007; Berrey 2015; Edelman 2016; Marvasti and McKinney 2011). Indeed, our factor solution is not ironclad, as Racial-diversity had reduced loadings. We have shown, however, the existence of a relatively coherent recognition toward the keyword diversity in the American imagination, one that it is distinct from possible confounders.

Within the sociological literature, some authors have considered the framework of conceptualizing widespread cultural beliefs and attitudes about diversity as a racial ideology dubbed the “diversity ideology” (e.g., Douds 2021; Embrick 2011; Mayorga-Gallo 2019; Woody 2020). From a general perspective, critical work that uses terminology of “the diversity ideology” or “diversity discourse” both discuss similar themes, particularly the shortcomings of diversity messages for pursuing racial equality, but a distinction exists. If diversity discourse truly is a diversity ideology, Americans’ ideas and attitudes about diversity cannot simply be an extension of other ideologies and discourses in the United States. Our study and the BAM dataset are not properly equipped to fully test or validate the framework of diversity as an ideology versus a discourse, but our findings are relevant to this line of inquiry. In Part 1, Table 3 empirically establishes that Americans’ shared recognition of the keyword diversity is indeed distinct and unique; diversity attitudes are not simply a reflection or product of prejudicial attitudes, immigration attitudes, or color-blind racial attitudes. If we had found the opposite, theorization about a diversity ideology would have hit a major snag.

Our study thus suggests that we need more theorizing and empirical analysis regarding how everyday diversity discourse may now constitute a coherent, distinct, and overarching racial ideology in the United States. Our second aim was to consider how the keyword diversity relates to racial inequality and hierarchy in the American imagination. This is inspired by a critical race theory tradition of illustrating the overt and implicit functions of everyday cultural discourse as related to racial hierarchy (Delgado and Stefancic 2017). We began with regressing diversity attitudes onto sociodemographic control variables. There is a significant difference between whites’ and Hispanics’ diversity attitudes; education, age, and political beliefs also prove significant predictors. In social science research, race-related attitudes are often related to such factors (Bobo et al. 2012; Bonilla-Silva and Dietrich 2011; Hunt 2007). Interestingly, county-level local context does not predict diversity attitudes, net of other controls. Several authors have researched diversity discourse with a specific focus on diversifying communities (e.g., Aptekar 2015; Berrey 2015; Burke 2012; Douds 2021; Hoekstra and Gerteis 2019; Mayorga-Gallo 2014). Future authors should consider studying diversity discourse in both large, racially heterogeneous locales and small, racially homogeneous locales. Americans from contrasting neighborhoods may express surprisingly similar attitudes about the concept of diversity.

The main takeaway of the second section was the empirical illustration of a general consensus in critical sociological literature: diversity is a racialized concept that can celebrate racial difference and racial harmony, but also uphold racial hierarchy. We find that positivity toward diversity is associated with ostensibly non-racist stances on several standard race-related attitudes, but positivity toward diversity is also associated with core cultural ideologies that normalize racial inequality and can implicitly denigrate minority communities. Importantly, these patterns appear among the same batch of respondents (n = 2,373). Thus, “diversity” functions in a manner that is double-edged for racial hierarchy in the United States.

Our study does have some limitations, such as the mathematical issues for conducting factor analysis upon the three key diversity items. Their small number of response categories and skewed distributions limit their factorability and the power of factor loadings. Future authors should design research instruments with more response categories and potential for normal-shaped distributions, which could provide a more granular analysis of how Americans respond to various survey items about diversity. In addition, we lacked the necessary measures to test how attitudes about gender, sexuality, and other marginalized identities relate to diversity discourse. We do not mean to neglect such aspects. Indeed, a critical race theory analysis is incomplete without intersectionality (Crenshaw 1990; May 2015). It is imperative that future research addresses this remaining gap, especially as diversity discourse is fundamental to how contemporary equity policy addresses sexism and other inequalities.

Despite limitations, however, we have provided an important contribution to the critical sociological literature about diversity discourse in the United States. First, we have verified the assumption of a shared cultural recognition of diversity in the American imagination, and we have shown that Americans do not see diversity as simply a proxy for other concepts. Second, we have established that diversity discourse is racialized and double-edged. On one hand, positivity toward diversity predicts ostensibly non-racist stances on some race-related attitudes. But, on the other hand, positivity toward diversity also predicts color-blind racism and other cultural beliefs that denigrate minorities, normalize racial inequality, and ultimately uphold racial hierarchy. Clearly, the oft-used, ill-defined, hyper-inclusive keyword of diversity is implicated in racial hierarchy in the United States.

Thus, shortcomings remain for “diversity” as an anti-racist concept, but we should not cast this term aside entirely. Scholars, activists, and policymakers should remember our findings about the connection between positive diversity attitudes and non-racist, equitable stances on standard racial attitudes. Fostering diversity in businesses, colleges, and communities is still an important goal, and one which can work toward a society which celebrates its racial difference while also prioritizing racial justice. Therefore, we must preserve and strengthen the progressive dimensions of diversity discourse while also divesting its connections to ideologies that insulate racial hierarchy in the United States.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This paper was written in conjunction with the American Mosaic Project. The authors greatly appreciate the support for data collection and research assistance given by the National Science Foundation (Grant Nos. 1258926 and 1258933) and the Edelstein Family Foundation to support survey data collection.

ORCID iDs

Neeraj Rajasekar

Douglas Hartmann

Notes

Author Biographies

Neeraj Rajasekar is an assistant professor of sociology at University of Minnesota Duluth.

Matthew Aguilar-Champeau is a PhD candidate in sociology at University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.

Douglas Hartmann is a professor of sociology at University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.

References

Aptekar

Sofya

. 2015. “Visions of Public Space: Reproducing and Resisting Social Hierarchies in a Community Garden.” Sociological Forum 30(1):209–27.

Barron

Jessica M.

2016. “Managed Diversity: Race, Place, and an Urban Church.” Sociology of Religion 77(1):18–36.

Bauman

Christopher W.

Trawalter

Sophie

Unzueta

Miguel M.

. 2014. “Diverse According to Whom? Racial Group Membership and Concerns about Discrimination Shape Diversity Judgments.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 40(10): 1354–72.

Bell

Joyce M.

Hartmann

Douglas

. 2007. “Diversity in Everyday Discourse: The Cultural Ambiguities and Consequences of ‘Happy Talk.’” American Sociological Review 72(6):895–914.

Berrey

Ellen

. 2011. “Why Diversity Became Orthodox in Higher Education, and How It Changed the Meaning of Race on Campus.” Critical Sociology 37(5):573–96.

Berrey

Ellen

. 2015. The Enigma of Diversity: The Language of Race and the Limits of Racial Justice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bobo

Lawrence D.

Charles

Camille Z.

Krysan

Maria

Simmons

Alicia

. 2012. “The Real Record on Racial Attitudes.” Pp. 38–83 In Social Trends in American Life: Findings from the General Social Survey since 1972, edited by Marsden

Peter V.

. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bonilla-Silva

Eduardo

. 2003. Racism without Racists: Color-blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Bonilla-Silva

Eduardo

. 2015. “The Structure of Racism in Color-blind, ‘Post-racial’ America.” American Behavioral Scientist 59(11):1358–76.

10.

Bonilla-Silva

Eduardo

Dietrich

David

. 2011. “The Sweet Enchantment of Color-blind Racism in Obamerica.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 634(1):190–206.

11.

Burke

Meghan A.

2012. “Discursive Fault Lines: Reproducing White Habitus in a Racially Diverse Community.” Critical Sociology 38(5):645–68.

12.

Burke

Meghan A.

2017. “Colorblind Racism: Identities, Ideologies, and Shifting Subjectivities.” Sociological Perspectives 60(5):857–65.

13.

Callegaro

Mario

DiSogra

Charles

. 2008. “Computing Response Metrics for Online Panels.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72(5):1008–32.

14.

Carr

M. Kelly

. 2018. The Rhetorical Invention of Diversity: Supreme Court Opinions, Public Arguments, and Affirmative Action. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

15.

Collins

Sharon M.

2011. “Diversity in the Post Affirmative Action Labor Market: A Proxy for Racial Progress?” Critical Sociology 37(5):521–40.

16.

Couper

Mick P.

2017. “New Developments in Survey Data Collection.” Annual Review of Sociology 43(1):121–45.

17.

Craig

Maureen A.

Richeson

Jennifer A.

. 2014. “More Diverse Yet Less Tolerant? How the Increasingly Diverse Racial Landscape Affects White Americans’ Racial Attitudes.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 40(6):750–61.

18.

Craig

Maureen A.

Rucker

Julian M.

Richeson

Jennifer A.

. 2018. “Racial and Political Dynamics of an Approaching ‘Majority-minority’ United States.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 677(1):204–14.

19.

Crenshaw

Kimberlé

. 1990. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43:1241–300.

20.

Crenshaw

Kimberlé

Gotanda

Neil

Peller

Gary

Thomas

Kendell

. 1995. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement. New York: New Press.

21.

Croll

Paul R.

2013. “Explanations for Racial Disadvantage and Racial Advantage: Beliefs about Both Sides of Inequality in America.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 36(1):47–74.

22.

Delgado

Richard

Stefancic

Jean

. 2017. Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. 3rd ed. New York: New York University Press.

23.

DiSogra

Charles

Callegaro

Mario

Hendarwan

Erlina

. 2009. “Recruiting Probability-based Web Panel Members Using an Address-based Sample Frame: Results from a Pilot Study Conducted by Knowledge Networks.” Presented at the Joint Statistical Meetings, August 1–6, Washington, DC.

24.

Doane

Ashley

. 2017. “Beyond Color-blindness: (Re) Theorizing Racial Ideology.” Sociological Perspectives 60(5):975–91.

25.

Dobbin

Frank

Schrage

Daniel

Kalev

Alexandra

. 2015. “Rage against the Iron Cage: The Varied Effects of Bureaucratic Personnel Reforms on Diversity.” American Sociological Review 80(5):1014–44.

26.

Douds

Kiara Wyndham

. 2021. “The Diversity Contract: Constructing Racial Harmony in a Diverse American Suburb.” American Journal of Sociology 126(6):1347–88.

27.

Edelman

Lauren B.

2016. Working Law: Courts, Corporations, and Symbolic Civil Rights. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

28.

Elias

Sean

Feagin

Joe R.

. 2016. Racial Theories in Social Science: A Systemic Racism Critique. New York: Routledge.

29.

Embrick

David G.

2011. “The Diversity Ideology in the Business World: A New Oppression for a New Age.” Critical Sociology 37(5):541–56.

30.

Gallagher

Charles A.

2014. “‘Blacks, Jews, Gays and Immigrants Are Taking over’: How the Use of Polling Data Can Distort Reality and Perpetuate Inequality among Immigrants.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 37(5):731–37.

31.

Gould

Mark

. 1999. “Race and Theory: Culture, Poverty, and Adaptation to Discrimination in Wilson and Ogbu.” Sociological Theory 17(2):171–200.

32.

Gramsci

Antonio

. [1927] 1992. The Prison Notebooks. New York: Columbia University Press.

33.

Hartmann

Douglas

. 2015. “Reflections on Race, Diversity, and the Crossroads of Multiculturalism.” The Sociological Quarterly 56(4):623–39.

34.

Herring

Cedric

Henderson

Loren

. 2011. “From Affirmative Action to Diversity: Toward a Critical Diversity Perspective.” Critical Sociology 38(5): 629–43.

35.

Hochschild

Jennifer L.

1996. Facing Up to the American Dream. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

36.

Hoekstra

Erin

Gerteis

Joseph

. 2019. “The Civic Side of Diversity: Ambivalence and Belonging at the Neighborhood Level.” City & Community 18(1): 195–212.

37.

Hunt

Matthew O.

2007. “African American, Hispanic, and White Beliefs about Black/White Inequality, 1977-2004.” American Sociological Review 72(3):390–415.

38.

Katznelson

Ira

. 2005. When Affirmative Action Was White. New York: W.W. Norton.

39.

Kelley

Robin D. G.

1997. Yo’mama’s Disfunktional! Fighting the Culture Wars in Urban America. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

40.

Kivisto

Peter

. 2012. “We Really Are All Multiculturalists Now.” The Sociological Quarterly 53(1):1–24.

41.

Knowles

Eric D.

Lowery

Brian S.

Chow

Rosalind M.

Unzueta

Miguel M.

. 2014. “Deny, Distance, or Dismantle? How White Americans Manage a Privileged Identity.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 9(6):594–609.

42.

Ladson-Billings

Gloria

. 2017. “‘Makes Me Wanna Holler’: Refuting the ‘Culture of Poverty’ Discourse in Urban Schooling.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 673(1):80–90.

43.

Leong

Nancy

. 2012. “Racial Capitalism.” Harvard Law Review 126:2151–226.

44.

Marvasti

Amir B.

McKinney

Karyn D.

. 2011. “Does Diversity Mean Assimilation?” Critical Sociology 37(5):631–50.

45.

May

Vivian M.

2015. Pursuing Intersectionality, Unsettling Dominant Imaginaries. New York: Routledge.

46.

Mayorga-Gallo

Sarah

. 2014. Behind the White Picket Fence: Power and Privilege in a Multiethnic Neighborhood. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

47.

Mayorga-Gallo

Sarah

. 2019. “The White-centering Logic of Diversity Ideology.” American Behavioral Scientist 63(13):1789–809.

48.

Moore

Wendy Leo

Bell

Joyce M.

. 2011. “Maneuvers of Whiteness: ‘Diversity’ as a Mechanism of Retrenchment in the Affirmative Action Discourse.” Critical Sociology 37(5):597–613.

49.

Omi

Michael

Winant

Howard

. 2015. Racial Formation in the United States. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.

50.

Petts

Amy L.

2020. “It’s All in the Definition: Color-blind Interpretations of School Diversity.” Sociological Forum 35(2):465–87.

51.

Pew Research Center. 2018. “Most Americans Express Positive Views of Country’s Growing Racial and Ethnic Diversity.” Retrieved January 22, 2022 (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/06/14/most-americans-express-positive-views-of-countrys-growing-racial-and-ethnic-diversity/).

52.

Ray

Victor Erik

Randolph

Antonia

Underhill

Megan

Luke

David

. 2017. “Critical Race Theory, Afro-pessimism, and Racial Progress Narratives.” Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 3(2):147–58.

53.

Rios

Victor M.

2011. Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys. New York: New York University Press.

54.

Soss

Joe

Fording

Richard C.

Schram

Sanford F.

. 2011. Disciplining the Poor: Neoliberal Paternalism and the Persistent Power of Race. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

55.

Underhill

Megan R.

2019. “‘Diversity Is Important to Me’: White Parents and Exposure-to-diversity Parenting Practices.” Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 5(4):486–99.

56.

Unzueta

Miguel M.

Knowles

Eric D.

Geoffrey C.

. 2012. “Diversity Is What You Want It to Be: How Social-dominance Motives Affect Construals of Diversity.” Psychological Science 23(3):303–309.

57.

Voyer

Andrea

. 2013. Strangers and Neighbors Multiculturalism Conflict and Community America. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

58.

Warikoo

Natasha K.

2016. The Diversity Bargain: And Other Dilemmas of Race, Admissions, and Meritocracy at Elite Universities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

59.

Williams

Raymond

. 1976. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

60.

Woody

Ashley

. 2020. “‘They Want the Spanish but They Don’t Want the Mexicans’: Whiteness and Consumptive Contact in an Oregon Spanish Immersion School.” Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 6(1):92–106.