Race, whether or not it can be successfully defined biologically, is clearly important. People, even the non-sincere, at least act as if race exists. So in order to achieve our limited definition of maximal diversity—maximum representation of all races, or of the characteristics thought to define race—we need to explicitly quantify race such that it falls into a finite number of groups. This number must also be small, else in any scope (such as our university), groups will be left out. Of course, some scopes are limited by nature: diversity is impossible for any scope which has fewer slots than there are racial groupings.
In order to achieve our limited definition of diversity, we must, artificially or no, group races (or proxy characteristics) into a small number of discrete buckets. I cannot say whether this is possible; but it seems unlikely: all human history argues that sanity on this topic will not be reached. Are Jews a race, or is that affiliation merely a behavior? The way “whites” think of “blacks” is entirely different than the way that non-uniform group think of themselves, and how they think of “whites.” Typical thinking here is loose and based on gut feelings. People will say, “‘Everybody knows what the racial groups are. It’s obvious.” Everybody does not know. And it is not obvious. Groupings will be capricious and based on shifting politics.
It is well to tackle here the growing feeling of outrage (nowadays the only available emotion for considering divergent opinions) some readers will feel. Any question of “historical injustices”, “counter-balancing”, etc., are utterly irrelevant to questions of whether maximal diversity is possible, which is the only question I intend on answering. I say nothing now about its desirability; however, I will do so when I discuss diversity of behavior.
Suppose a miracle occurs and all wake one morning to find a common acceptable definition of race. Is diversity—strictly of race, ignoring all other characteristics—possible? Yes. But only if the staffing operation of every (sizable) scope is overseen by quota masters. I have already shown that maximal diversity is impossible in scopes which have fewer slots than racial groups. But racial-diversity is possible in large scopes. However, suppose that staffing occurs on the first come, first served basis. Then, just by chance alone, some scopes will become non-diverse, i.e. stocked with too many of this group and not enough of that one. And when we consider we have a vast multitude of scopes all variously sized, the chance of finding non-diverse scopes becomes nearly certain. (Make sure you understand this statistical argument.) Thus, the only way to maintain diversity is by force and planning. How this is accomplished is irrelevant. As are “the best” or the “is qualified” premises, which can be present or absent. Racial-diversity is a logical possibility, but only by enforced quota, and only by arbitrary definitions of race.
Now consider sex, or “gender” as the sincere usually call it. This category is problematic, because it is more than just tallying up the number of Y chromosomes an individual has. Technical agreement is, however, easier to reach here than it is with race. That is, we might more easily agree to define sex into a small number of groups, smaller or larger depending whether we’re willing to consider homosexuality a genetic fixture or define it as a behavior, whether those with two X chromosomes but with typical male features are their own group or are considered male, and so forth.
Is sex-diversity possible? Clearly yes. But again only by enforced quota and agreement to groupings. The same statistical argument of imbalance works here. The next step is to ask for race-sex-diversity. If, say, we had a dozen race buckets and four buckets for sex, then we would have forty-eight race-sex buckets (these numbers are for illustration, but they are in the ballpark). This large number makes diversity for scopes with fewer than forty-eight slots impossible—as in impossible. Unfortunately for diversity, many scopes are small, so widespread non-diversity must be tolerated. The larger number of buckets also dramatically increases the probability that, just by chance, non-diversity scopes are found (I do not give these probability arguments; they are obvious to the adept). Thus, the more buckets we have, the more we need to have quota masters to insure maximal diversity.
However, we have answered our question. As long as we preferentially choose a small number of traits to track (one or two), and as long as we are able to collect these traits into non-disputable groupings, limited diversity is logically possible for a limited number of (but not all) scopes, but only if overseen by quota masters. With any other definition, maximal diversity of physical characteristic is not possible.
Very well. So much for physical characteristics. We now must enter the realm of multiculturalism and ask if diversity of behavior is possible and desirable.