>exceeding the balance & distribution that exists in the
>country. It's almost like the term has no weight because it's
>based on a flawed sample set. Does that make sense? I'm still
>trying to articulate and understand this abstract notion
>that's in my mind right now.


Like, "oh, we consider all viewpoints because we've got a little bit of everything included in our population."

But if that population is primarily dominated by one group (lets say 60% or more), then the views and perspectives of that group can easily overrule and stifle those of the minority groups.

So "true" diversity, to me, starts when no group is greater than 50% of the population and gets better the lower the percentage of the population the biggest minority group is.

My high school was pretty diverse compared to national demographics... 40% white, 40% black and 20% other when I was there. I had gone to majority white school before so it was refreshing to be around so many different black people, let alone *different* black people (which is hard to come by if you're just a tiny sliver of the population)... but I'm sure that 20% "other" had a different experience.