Ed has a great post on modern Western diversity schema, which reminded me of what I was trying to say here, but from a different perspective and vocabulary. I left a comment there, the bulk of which is copied below (added numbers for clarity*):
1. The world is diverse (given, self-evident)
2. People self-segregate (given, self-evident)
3. The kind of diversity people commonly refer to is a personal preference, not a moral imperative
4. Diversity within a physical space is a contradiction, since the diversity has to be subsumed under one culture-type. It literally cannot happen, despite there being some theoretical logic behind it.
5. Diversity cannot be planned or bureaucratized effectively, since people and groups of people prioritize their personal preferences in lots of internal ways that can’t be quantified
6. Bureaucratized diversity preferences = enforced monoculture of law, since all subsumed cultures would have to share the law in common with each other. It’s actually the opposite of diversity (see the fourth point above)
7. Bureaucratized diversity preferences will lead to unfortunate blowback. It’s a law of human behavior. Keep in mind that diversity preferences not only include forced integration but forced segregation as well. Blowback can occur when two cultures that want to diversity themselves are restricted from doing so.
* This isn’t a logical proof; the statements don’t necessarily build upon previous ones.