Thanks for the thoughts. I enjoy thought experiments about topics of diversity. I think one of the difficult things about it is that it is such a charged issue most people are not able to think about it without becoming reactive, no matter what the viewpoint (pro, against, confused, etc) is. It really troubles me because with that re-activity comes a stifling of actual discussion and capacity to critically evaluate.
1. I'm not sure that follows. Just because someone is biased against something doens't mean that person couldn't help someone else. Just because I dislike minority X doesn't mean that I can't help with phobia Y or minority issue Z. It's a bit of a Lucifer effect. I agree that openness is critically helpful, but I'm not sure that its possible to say definitively that it is impossible to help someone if you are biased yourself. I also imagine the degree of diversive belief would also be important. If someone absolutely, without a doubt, thinks that race X is horrible and no one can be trusted that deals with them, I (speaking as a southern guy who has run into these folks a good deal) can tell you that they are seldom open to my openness with that population. I think we would be in trouble as a people, and as a profession, if we expected perfection of ourselves. Either way, I generally agree with your point its just a thought experiment I like to raise.
2. One of the rationales is that we need diversity in the field due to its implications. If diversity does not promote changes that are clinically important, then one of the arguments for diversity inclusion efforts is undermined. This argument is even made within this thread.
I'm curious about the whole idea of when we enter the profession. We describe and think of internship as a capstone experience and it is. Its not exactly a hurdle that many don't pass. While there are some that don't pass EPPP or don't get licensed, almost everyone gets an internship (if that means a second year, either way- they still get one). The number of those who leave the field entirely during internship applications is VERY small I would wager. The number who do so because of issues related to diversity status is likely in infinitely small metrics.
I would be more concerned about the affording of 800 dollar tests and 800 dollar study materials for those from poorer families, or the high cost of travel for internship interviews for that matter, than mere ethic classifications that often make the focus. My belief is that the issue is less about ethnic differences (white vs black vs green vs purple or whatever else) and that wealth disparities are more likely reflective of economic differences influencing capacity for diverse ethnic groups to seek this professional training; There is a general trend where college education begets college education and doctor tend to beget doctor. This is why there are so many educational efforts for first generation college students. Those programs (e.g., Trio, etc.) don't target rare although race does become a disparate factor when compared to US census. This isn't where we put our focus though and I think that's a huge disservice.
Still though, what constitutes diversity? It worries me that we use 'diversity' to make qualifications (as noted on hiring decisions, etc) but there is no explicit agreement on when a group is sufficiently distinct from another to win that classification. In measurement terms, diversity has a large issue with group descrimination (ironic isn't it?).
