Is diversity a proper objective

Since my opponent has not provided a framework I will do so for him. An objective can be considered proper if there are benefits to said objective. Therefore I, as the pro, should have the burden of proving that there are benefits to diversity. If I can do so, then I have one the debate. I will begin by rebutting my opponent's only contention and then go on to add a few of my own. My opponent's contention is essentially that diversity decreases civic participation. He does not provide a warrant or explanation for why this effect occurs and merely relies on the correlation from one study to support his assertion. He does not provide a source, but I found his Boston Globe article and find (4) main issues with this contention: 1. Outdated Findings The study's data was taken in 2001, and the article was only published in 2007. In 2001, only 4% of US senators publicly supported gay marriage, but today, 50% do (NY Times). What we can take from this is that today, in general, people are differences are much more acceptable than they were when the findings of this study occurred. Therefore it is reasonable to say that these findings are no longer relevant. 2. Correlation =/= Causation The first issue with this study is that it does not necessarily represent an effect of diversity itself. The same article which my opponent cites admit that "diverse communities tended to be larger, have greater income ranges, higher crime rates, and more mobility among their residents," each of which make the impact of the study lower and lower if they are accounted for. A much more logical explanation for the difference is the idea that low-income areas have lower civic participation and are also more likely to be diverse. Even if this is not the correct explanatory variable, my opponent gives us no reason to assume causation. The study does not include and causal statistical analysis and therefore the argument does not prove anything. 3. Does not Negate Long-Term Benefits Even if my opponent wins this contention, he does not win the debate. There are many benefits to diversity and the diversity of American society has already decreased xenophobia in this country, especially as compared to racially homogeneous countries such as Japan. If we continue to promote diversity it is likely that the effects of the study will fade away. 4. No Real Impact The study does not prove that promoting diversity is bad. In fact, the creator of the study, Robert Putnam, is still an avid promoter of social diversity. Pro's Contentions: 1. Diversity Improves Problem-Solving Diversity means multiple points of view and a better chance to solve complex problems. Networks which are multicultural have higher rates of creativity (Harvard Business School). In addition, a study found that problem solvers from different backgrounds were more effective than teams of talented problem solvers (Professors from UMichigan and Loyola). 2. Economic Benefits Improved problem-solving leads directly to economic benefits. Workforce diversity is one of the most important causes of innovation and businesses growth (Forbes). Furthermore, when businesses have executive boards which are more diverse, they have higher profits (McKinsey). 3. Political Benefits A study from the University of Michigan in 2003 (after 2001) finds that participating in activities with people of other races leads to increased understanding of democratic citizenship and higher civic participation. This makes intuitive sense because interacting with people from other backgrounds should lead to increased exposure to many types of knowledge. Good luck Lookingatissues. . http://www.boston.com... . http://graphics8.nytimes.com... . http://www.forbes.com... . https://wmich.edu...