From Green Bay, WI to Minneapolis metro

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

HOW is Rosemount "AS" diverse as South?

South has racial, ethnic, and economic diversity. What kind of diversity does Rosemount have that South lacks? Or are you suggesting that as long as there's one kid from a given background that it counts as diverse? If so, I don't think that's how most people define diversity -- as far as the working term goes, I think most people understand diversity, especially when discussing in a school or neighborhood context, to not mean merely that there's one (or a handful) token representative from a given background in the group at large. (and even if we are using the "as long as there's one person it counts as diverse" argument, I'd still bet South is more diverse, especially if you start looking at languages spoken at home, etc.)

Again, get out of Minneapolis, explore the area, learn what it is like vs making assumptions. I am sure my neighbors from India or the other neighbors from Korea or the Somalian family down the street will disagree with you...all in one short block....

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Again, get out of Minneapolis, explore the area, learn what it is like vs making assumptions. I am sure my neighbors from India or the other neighbors from Korea or the Somalian family down the street will disagree with you...all in one short block....

Clearly you're not getting what I'm saying. I'm NOT suggesting that Rosemount has NO people from other countries, or no non-white kids, etc., but it's also CLEAR that it doesn't compare to a school like South. Simple demographics alone back that up! Less than 9% of the residents were born in another country. Almost 88% of the population is white. More than 90% of the population speaks English at home. That obviously means that it's not an all-white American enclave, but it's hard to argue that it's the epitome of Twin Cities diversity, either. Just because you have neighbors from other countries does not have any bearing on whether or not Rosemount is a more diverse community than the areas served by South.

I suppose there's no point arguing as we're obviously never going to see eye-to-eye on this, as again, I think this is all rather pointless as I can't imagine that the OP would find Rosemount to her liking.

[golfgal]

di·ver·si·ty   [dih-vur-si-tee, dahy-] Show IPA
noun, plural di·ver·si·ties.
1.
the state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness.
2.
variety; multiformity.
3.
a point of difference.


I don't see any reference here to % of people required to be "diverse". Like I said earlier, people on this board use diversity to mean mostly black, not from varied background, which clearly is the definition of the word.

How is 45%, black, 40% white and 15% other more diverse than 80% white and 20% other???

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by golfgal

How is 45%, black, 40% white and 15% other more diverse than 80% white and 20% other???

Because, by definition, it is more diverse.

Diversity as used in your second definition, "variety", is a pretty obvious example.

If you walk into a bookstore and they sell 100 books and 84 of those are crime novels and the other 16 are something else, would you say that bookstore sells a diverse group of books? No. Or at least you shouldn't. Because if, on average, you were to pick a book at random, overwhelmingly you'd end up with a crime novel. Same example except with a "mixed" bag of candy. If 80 or 90 of them are Snickers and the other 10 to 20 are comprised of Starburst, Skittles, and Milky Way, you wouldn't say it has the same diversity based on random choice.

The point of describing a diverse school as one that has more than a few token students of color is that you are more likely to be exposed to diversity if there is more of it.

Perhaps in a context you'll understand. You've harped on MPS for having a problem of slackers influencing other students to underperform. Meanwhile, Rosemount is trumped as the school where the smart kids are the cool kids. Those slackers are on the fringe and therefore they don't rub off. But because Rosemount clearly has some slackers, would you argue that both MPS and Rosemount have the same slacker problem? Shouldn't, under that assumption, you therefore be recommending MPS equally in this case? The logic says yes.

Your argument seems to be defending Rosemount for the simple reason of defending Rosemount. Nobody attacked it as a bad place to live. But you seem to get angry anytime someone thinks it might not be the best fit for everyone. You don't want people who are fans of the urban environment living in your city...in greater numbers, they might eventually push for different zoning laws or something else scary. I mean...the houses might end up right on top of each other!