CONCORD, CA (Aug. 1, 2025) — In consideration of the next set of questions for the Pulse of Concord survey, I want to explore the perceptions of how people measure diversity and its relationship to how they act/vote in the political world and its interplay with bias or prejudice or plain ole bigotry.

Further complicating the issue is the current intensity of animosity to the very word and its application to the three main categories of social/economic/political cultures or organizations. How can I ask questions about diversity that do not fly up people’s noses or other anatomical structures?

Clearly, there is a dominant idea to count diversity based on race/ethnicity/gender/age/sexual orientation of individuals in the subject group. I could further compare it to the population that is geographically around that group to see if there is a one-to-one correlation.

The greater the emphasis on this method in the political category brings us into conflict and exposes us to determinations that are based on those characteristics which the individual actually has no control over. Yet the political field is exactly where I was taught that we are expected to have leadership that emphasizes making policies and decisions that are not based on those things.

[broadstreet zone=”160420″]

Phrases like “indivisible with liberty and justice for all,” “from many to one” and “we are all Americans” speak to those characteristics that are not just secondary but should be irrelevant.

Political parties are quite aware of the growing return to emphasis on these characteristics. Whether it is called “ID politics” or something more abrasive, you will find that the packaging of the messenger of policy that disproportionately may affect a particular group is chosen or evolves to be from that same grouping so as to pull in the casual voters or low information voters. Is this a sign of increased prejudice in the electorate being manipulated?

So, I want to structure questions that get at the scope of this aspect in the political world. Some suggestions that have been unsatisfactory but illustrate the problem are:

“If I do not know anything about a candidate, I vote for a woman.” Is this sexism?

“If I do not know anything about a candidate or they are equal, don’t vote for white people.” Is this racism?

“Making assumptions about a candidate’s qualification for office based on their identity is a common practice and is fair because it leads to diversity.” Is this true?

“Is it acceptable to vote for a candidate because they seem different from the community’s majority” Yes/no/maybe.

“If an elected body does not mirror the demographics of its territory, that is bigotry in action.” Agree/disagree.

“People cannot reasonably be expected to represent a segment of their electorate that they are not of the same race/ethnicity/gender/orientation.” Agree/disagree.

Also, how do I balance the different components of diversity unless I take up the current vogue of breaking diversity down to white and non-white? Male or female? Old or not old?

In a government elected group of five, it is not possible to have equal representation of male/female combined with a community that could be 33% Chinese, 12% African-American, 15% Hindu Indians, 10% each of Poles and Navajos, 5% mixed Irish and Scottish, and the rest who have no idea what they are. Is a City Council of all women not able to represent men? Same the other way around?

Then again, there is a warning from quantum physics that says by actually trying to observe and measure something you get a different result than what would otherwise be happening. So maybe the answer is not to ask the questions. What do you think?

Write to me at EdiBirsan@gmail.com.