Editorial: Are we serious about ‘Unity and Diversity’?

by Christian Bell, Editor in Chief

This editorial begins a multi-part evaluation of some current issues at CTS. The aim to offer a critical consideration of topics that are being discussed by students and faculty at the seminary this year.

Perhaps because we’re standing between Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Black History Month, or perhaps because it’s a perennial topic of interest, the matter of ‘diversity’ is on the cover of two CTS-related publications this month.

The Winter 2007 issue of Forum, the faculty and staff quarterly glossy, is on the topic of “Unity and Diversity.” The cover even features a not-at-all-beaten-to-death metaphor in a picture of a multi-colored woven tapestry. By the same token, the current February 2007 issue of The Banner features a black family prominently on the cover under the headline, “Black and Reformed.” While it’s not quite Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song, there is some question about whether a cover and headline is really necessary to proclaim that yes, it is possible to be both black and Reformed.

Clearly, we are being serious when we talk about this subject. In his parody song White and Nerdy, Weird Al Yankovich raps, “I’d like to roll with the gangstas, although it’s apparent I’m too white and nerdy.” If only that song wasn’t such an apt and embarrassing metaphor for our ‘diversity’ talk.

‘Diversity,’ as the term is used around here, is often taken to mean purposefully or intentionally including people other than white males in a community. It’s a benevolent ideal, although the carrying out of that ideal is often such a clumsy process that it does indeed make the community seem white and nerdy.

For some time, both the college and seminary have been doggedly pursuing the ideals of diversity without appearing to take much stock of the changes that occur with a more diverse community and whether those changes are productive and worth the collateral damage they incur. The long-held assumption is that if we intentionally pursue and foster diversity, we’re being true to our Gospel message.

At face value this is certainly true. Scripture makes clear that the body of Christ is a multidimensional, multicultural array of humanity. We thus rightly condemn isolationism, racism, segregation, and all itinerant forms of discrimination.

But condemning discrimination isn’t the same thing as embracing diversity. In fact, they often stand quite in opposition to each other.

Intentionally pursuing diversity is a laudable goal but – and this is a significant pullback – doing so in an unnatural way increases discrimination, rather than decreasing it. The discrimination is of a different form, however: rather than being open and apparent, it is subdued and subversive.

Consider the college’s long-running effort to feature a blend of caucasian and so-called ‘AHANA’ (African, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American) students in campus publicity shots. Looking at the pictures, it would be easy to conclude that some significant percentage of the college student body is made up of ethnic minorities, although the actual percentage continues to languish.

CTS has not been quite as guilty of putting on a multicultural façade, in part because the seminary is more multicultural, although caucasian students still comprise the vast majority of the student body. For its part, however, the seminary has a dangerous new policy – publicly announced by Vice President for Administration Duane Kelderman at a town hall meeting in the fall – to intentionally seek out female and multicultural applicants for faculty vacancies.

How could we criticize such a move? Because we are concerned about the matter of tokenism.

Tokenism is the very worst threat in pursuing diversity, and one of the most vicious forms of discrimination. Tokenism is a response to homogeneity that places minorities in a few key areas and then proudly proclaims, “Problem solved!” Tokenism doesn’t respond to discrimination, it institutionalizes it.

Is CTS intentionally seeking women and multicultural applicants for faculty vacancies because it legitimately wants its community to become diversified, or is it seeking a response to criticisms – crafted especially sharply at the beginning of the year – that it is an “old boys’ club” of Dutch male academics?

Because the administration will certainly respond claiming the former, we have to consider just how serious they are and what that change would mean. Diversity means more than just skin tone change and female bathrooms; it must be an all-encompassing change in the institution. This means that promoting diversity includes promoting the introduction of new and possibly contentious views into an academic and intellectual ecosphere that has been carefully cultivated for 131 years.

The administration and faculty may say that they want diversity, but are they ready for the changes that that might entail? From my four years of sitting in the classroom, I’m not yet convinced that they are.

The seminary, the college, and the denomination must seriously consider the changes that accompany a true willingness to be diverse, and whether or not they really want those changes. While there will certainly be some significant problems – doctrinally, ecumenically, and personally – there are significant benefits as well. Just ask the dozens of congregations that have opened their doors to minority communities and been transformed – richly so – by the experience.

In whatever ways we pursue diversity goals, let’s ensure that we do it authentically by avoiding tokenism and silly efforts to ‘focus on diversity’ or legitimize the already perfectly legitimate state of being both ethnic and Reformed.

In prayer, let us truly seek to broaden our often-narrow image of what it means to be Christians, Calvinists, and Calvin seminarians.

Want to respond to this article? Send your letter to letters@kerux.org; see the guidelines for more information.