It’s very interesting to note where the debate about diversity is taking place. It is taking place primarily in political circles. Here at the College Fund, we have a lot of contact with top corporate leaders; none of them is talking about getting rid of those instruments that produce diversity. In fact, they say that if their companies are to compete in the global village and in the global market place, diversity is an imperative. They also say that the need for talented, skilled Americans means we have to expand the pool means promoting policies that help provide skills to more minorities, more women and more immigrants. Corporate leaders know that if that doesn’t occur in our society, they will not have the engineers, the scientist, the lawyers, or the business managers they will need.
注意关于多样性发生的争论地点很有意思，它主要发生在政界。在大学基金会，我们与顶级企业的领导人有很多联系；他们中没有一个人在谈论要废除那些产生多样性的工具。事实上，他们表示如果他们的公司要在地球村和全球市场上竞争，多样性是必不可少的。他们还表示，对有才华、有技能的美国人的需求意味着我们必须扩大人才库，这意味着我们要推动有助于为更多少数族裔、更多女性和更多移民提供技能的政策。企业领导人知道，如果我们的社会不这样做，他们将失去所需的工程师、科学家、律师或业务经理。
Likewise, I don’t hear people in the academy saying. “Let’s go backward. Let’s go back to the good old days, when we had a meritocracy” (which was never true-we never had a meritocracy, although we’ve come close to it in the last 30 years). I recently visited a great little college in New York where the campus had doubled its minority population in the last six years. I talked with an African American who has been a professor there for a long time, and she remembers that when she first joined the community, there were fewer than a handful of minorities on campus. Now, all of us feel the university is better because of the diversity. So where we hear this debate is primarily in political circles and in the media-not in corporate board rooms or on college campuses.
同样，学院里的人也没有这么说。“让我们倒退，让我们回到过去的好日子，那时我们不拘一格选人才”（这并不真实，尽管我们在过去30年里已经接近了不拘一格选人才）。我最近参观了纽约一所很棒的小学院，在过去的六年里，那里的少数族裔人口增加了一倍。我和一位在那里担任教授很长时间的非裔美国人交谈过，她记得当她第一次加入社区时，校园里的少数族裔很少。现在，我们所有人都觉得大学因为多样性而变得更好。因此，我们听到这场辩论的地方主要是政界和媒体，而不是公司董事会会议室或大学校园。
网友评论