Talk:Intellectual diversity

"The definition and usage of this term have varied over time"

Indeed. Which is why attempting to compile an encyclopaedic article from diverse primary sources which use a two-word phrase is inadvisable. I'm unconvinced that this article actually has a consistent topic at all. The lede implies that this is a single 'term'. The article body suggests otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm don't know how this article will develop, but I think it can go back earlier than 1992. There's a International journal of scholarly academic intellectual diversity, sounds right up our alley. I don't know if Sanger made it a bit of a buzzword, or if it was one earlier. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't be particularly surprised if the two words 'intellectual diversity' could be found together prior to 1992. That isn't however relevant to my point, which is that this article seems to be concocting a topic out of instances where these two relatively common words can be found together. If they aren't discussing the same thing, it isn't a single topic. An article is supposed to have a single topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps we'll end up with a disamb page with content like

• Intellectual diversity (Academics)
• Intellectual diversity (American law)
• Intellectual diversity (Larry Sanger)

or something like that. And a WP:Intellectual diversity with something on it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure the distinction between intellectual diversity in academics and in American law really exists as from what I can tell, most of the discussion about intellectual diversity in American law is about trying to promote it in academia. ScienceD90 (she/her) (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Based on what I read at Ohio Senate Bill 1 (2025), it seems that what academics consider intellectual diversity, and what American law considers it to be, could be argued to be different. "In order to comply with Ohio Senate Bill 1, Kent State University announced the closure of its LGBTQ+ Center, Women's Center, and Multicultural Center effective June 27, 2026" etc. The "It also restricts universities from commenting on anything "controversial", more specifically relating to political issues." seems quite remarkable to me, but off topic for this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Literally three articles with different names of things. ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Based on this podcast (I'm about halfway in), the "main-story" here may be "...in American higher education." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:43, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Some discussion of what intellectual diversity means/can mean starts at 4:20 in this video:. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

This page fails to define its subject or provide a coherent explanation of what it's about, starting with the very sad opening of "intellectual diversity is a diversity". The biggest problem is it can't decide if it's about a concept or a term. Where it tries to get into the concept is where it becomes a mess, and where it overlaps with existing articles like diversity (politics) and academic freedom. If you're going to retain this article, IMO turn it into an article about the term. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:42, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Aside from AFC approval by MediaKyle, I know the article may still be a lot of work. Nonetheless, I'm still further seeking reliable sources using the term... or phrase explicitly, like ones from the 19th century. Also, the previous version before me was worse with potential original research inserted. Meanwhile, will tag the article based on feedback above. George Ho (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

IMO, content like this

"Matthew J. Kiernan wrote in February 1993 for The Executive publication that Japanese carmaker "Honda's culture of self-criticism and intellectual diversity stands out conspicuously.""

Doesn't help the article, and I removed it. In a 7798 word source article, the phrase is used once. Existing in not enough. I think there may be more content like that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

References

Are we purposefully avoiding the dishonest, rather Orwellian, use of the phrase to suppress education and information that some don't like? --Hipal (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Get some good WP:DUE sources on it, preferably academic ones, and get some content in there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Dunno what the dishonest, rather Orwellian, use of the phrase you were referring to. Also, what do you think exemplifies education and information that some don't like? I'm interpreting what sources say and attributing who the sources were/are. George Ho (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The New York Times has some good coverage, mostly focused on anti-DEI directives. --Hipal (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't stuff about anti-DEI directives belong already at diversity, equity, and inclusion? Also, even an NYT article should somehow connect "intellectual diversity" with anti-DEI directives, not just trivially mentioning them both. George Ho (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe the political use of the phrase should be prominent in this article, and we should not be excluding references that show how important that aspect is. --Hipal (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Uh... Let's not make political aspect too prominent please. The Second Cold War has been already exhaustingly political as-is. So have been diversity (politics)... and identity politics. Let's not do the same to intellectual diversity yet, especially by just simply giving huge emphasis to NYT articles and DEI... please?

(Trying to find ways to pipe the WP:right great wrongs essay, honestly, which... well, discourages righting the wrongs generally. BTW, WP:IDONTLIKE redirects to an essay about faulty arguments in deletion discussions, so.... Even WP:AADP is about survey-like discussions, honestly.) George Ho (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Let's try to focus on good sources that focus on Intellectual diversity, and let the article develop from that. Politics is obviously part of it (and it's in there), and there are other WP-articles like Education policy of the second Trump administration, Columbia University's settlement with the Trump administration, Harvard v. Department of Health and Human Services etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Term or phrase?

Some sources called this topic a "phrase". I somewhat don't mind it called as "term". Nonetheless, can't tell whether to call it both, especially in this article. George Ho (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Good question. This source says it as a "term", this one says "phrase". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

References

Asking Google's AI "Is "Intellectual diversity" a term or a phrase?" gave me this: That "reply" may look different depending on whatever or change with time, idk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Potential sources

• Intellectual Diversity and the Mission of Higher Education (used it)
• Intellectual and Viewpoint Diversity: Importance, Scope and Bounds

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The second one is a WP:MDPI source, but per author Tyler VanderWeele, probably good enough anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's reliable per @lethargilistic below. VanderWeele is an epidemiologist; why is he qualified to define concepts in political philosophy/educational theory? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:35, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Per current article writing, it's reliable for that in-text attributed content, but there could be a WP:DUE issue. Don't know if "VanderWeele has expressed strong support for academic freedom of expression, and has published work on intellectual and viewpoint diversity. He is a member of the Academic Freedom Alliance, the Heterodox Academy, and Harvard's Council on Academic Freedom." gives him some DUE-ness or not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

If the journal itself isn't reliable, then we need to treat it as an SPS per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "The lack of reliable peer review implies that articles in such journals should at best be treated similarly to self-published sources." I'm not sure we should give an SPS any weight in a "definition" section for an article about a sociopolitical concept. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

If, yes. I have no informed opinion on that particular journals reputation, or the "state" of MDPI today. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Unsure about the following source:

• Renee Tipton Clift and Allen R. Warner, March 1986, "University Contributions to the Education of Teachers", Journal of Teacher Education, vol 37, no. 2, doi:10.1177/002248718603700206

While a section title uses "intellectual diversity", the term isn't technically repeated in that section. However, coverage might be implicitly extensive, despite not using the term much in the article body elsewhere. At least it's not a news article. George Ho (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

It is clearly being used in the sense of intellectual + diversity. Given that the phrase is so broad, there will be a lot of sources that don't use it in the sense of what makes the topic notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Racial diversity?

Re: "The National Association of Scholars (NAS), a politically conservative establishment, asserted in an amicus brief that "intellectual diversity bears no obvious or necessary relationship to racial diversity". Patrick J. Duggan, then-judge of a US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, rejected that viewpoint in response amid a court decision issued on December 13, 2000, about the Gratz v. Bollinger case."

This is such an extraordinary position that I would very much like to see the article explain Duggan's reasoning, and include any RS that analyzed or commented on it. The idea that a person's political position is determined or even influenced by their race seems crazy. I can certainly see culture having such an influence -- if everyone you know belongs to the same political party you are likely to belong to it as well -- and I can see experience having an influence -- a rich person in a gated community is likely to have different politics from a poor person in a ghetto where there is a lot of police brutality -- but race itself determining politics? That's surprising, and is something I would like to see more sources on. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Uhh... I left a footnote saying that the Supreme Court made a decision on the Gratz v. Bollinger case. Will notify the WP:WikiProject Law and other related WikiProjects soon for further expertise. George Ho (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but was that the case the NAS amicus was about? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid so, according to the cite I've been citing. George Ho (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

That seems counter-intuitive. How could Patrick J. Duggan have rejected the 2003 NAS viewpoint on a supreme court case in a 2000 not supreme court case? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh... I meant that the amicus brief was filed before the 2000 decision. The case must've gone to the Supreme Court after Duggus's decision in a District Court. George Ho (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

If the ab was filed before 2000, it seems unlikely it was about the 2003 case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@George Ho If I understand correctly, the ab was for CASE NO.: 97-CV-75231-DT. And that case, being from 2000, is not about Gratz v. Bollinger from 2003. So the current article-text doesn't make sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I really assumed that both were the same primarily because they both had the same plaintiffs and defendants. Also, the both lawsuits dealt with the same matter. BTW, made some changes just now. George Ho (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

That looks much better, thanks. Devil in the details. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it's fairly well established that African Americans tend to vote Democrat (African_Americans#Politics), but of course other factors than race can be argued to affect that. It argues against influence = crazy, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Guy Macon, you should be aware by now that there is no 'itself' as far as 'race' is concerned. It's all culture. And politics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

"if everyone you know belongs to the same political party you are likely to belong to it as well" From personal experience, I doubt that. I was primarily raised by a great-uncle who was a New Democracy loyalist with rather conservative beliefs. Both of my parents were loyalists of PASOK with nominally socialist beliefs, and my maternal grandfather was a low-level party organizer for the same party. I have voted for neither of these parties in my adult life, typically voting for democratic socialist, eco-socialist, and (at least nominally) feminist parties. I don't really trust any party with neoliberal policies to handle economic matters. People don't simply inherit ideologies. Dimadick (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Why is a random amicus brief being cited in this article? How is that due for an article on a broad ideological concept? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:57, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The ab isn't cited, a court case and a secondary source are. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Still probably not due and smacks of recentism. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:10, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The court case is 2000 and the other source is 2007. Not that recent. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion is teed up well here or in the article. Race has a prominent position in considerations of politics and culture. There are many people who believe their politics derive from their race; for example, there are people who would say that they hold a political position because holding another would be harmful to people of their race. In at least that limited sense, race can determine someone's politics. And there are many strains of political thought that self-identify as racial, such as Black Marxism.

But I think the real problem is that this article is trying to cover the topic of "intellectual diversity" as if that is an objective topic of study when that is not true. It is a rhetorical device used to promote political ends in the university setting, usually to say that universities are better when there are many kinds of people there. So, the comment that started this discussion—saying that it's "crazy" to suggest that race can be determinative of politics—kinda misses the point here. If anyone says that race is a part of intellectual diversity, then it likely should be in the article (which, maybe, should not exist because this is So Nebulous). lethargilistic (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

People are trying to study it, though: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's accurate. "Intellectual diversity" is a political buzzword that doesn't have a set meaning. Any study involving it would necessarily be about something else more defined. For example, political diversity or cultural diversity. lethargilistic (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

[I was reading this in the official app, and that paper link did not appear.] This paper is drivel, to be quite honest. It defines viewpoint diversity as disagreements about specific issues and creates a level of abstraction above that arbitrarily called intellectual diversity, wherein the fact that many people disagree about many things is somehow a matter of intellect:

Whereas viewpoint diversity concerns the range and distribution of views held in a given context regarding a particular question, issue, or controversy, I would understand intellectual diversity as being concerned with not simply particular views, but with the intellect of a person, and, by extension, entire systems of thought. Intellectual diversity might thus be defined as the range and distribution of systems of thought held by persons or systematically presented within a given academic context.

Worse, it incorporates a criticism release valve by saying that intellectual diversity is not really definable:

The distinction with viewpoint diversity is relevant because while it may be relatively straightforward for someone to present and consider arguments for and against a particular viewpoint when he or she does not embrace it, it is more challenging, though not impossible, to do so with regard to an entire system of thought.

Intellectual and viewpoint diversity are very broad concepts, extending essentially to the whole of human thought, and are thus effectively impossible to fully characterize... (Apologies. Wrong copy/paste.)

Sources cited near this definition (Dotson 2020, Kammer 2020) seem to be about how intellectual diversity is not definable and is a conservative project.

His empirical argument is exclusively about political diversity polls of university professors, and he claims that they show a decline in the ratio of conservative-to-liberal professors. He does not consider any other kinds of difference in thought other than political diversity, which is essentially what I predicted a source like this would have to do.

The rest of the article is not empirical. It draws connections from this nebulous decline in intellectual diversity to an inability to understand public health issues like rising suicide rates. It says intellectual diversity is not a great concern in physics or mathematics, which is absurd if you take the idea that "intellectual diversity" exists seriously. And, frankly, the article summarizes itself well enough with this:

Ultimately, if the university, and particular departments and disciplines are genuinely committed to the pursuit of knowledge, then faculty members should care enough about this pursuit to desire to seek out other perspectives so as to be able to better ensure their own capacity to defend their positions, and to ensure and safeguard knowledge.

Although it's typically not incumbent upon us to evaluate sources, this is beyond the pale to me. I wouldn't consider this isolated article by an epidemiologist proposing nebulous definitions for "intellectual diversity" that hinges entirely on conservatism in the university to support the idea that "people are studying this" objectively. This is a political buzzword. lethargilistic (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

+1 voorts (talk/contributions) 22:36, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

How anyone can proclaim that it's easier to reject a particular viewpoint rather than an entire system of thought is beyond me. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:26, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Why was this accepted at AfC?

This article is extremely poorly organized, has serious WP:NPOV issues, and after reading it, I still have no clue what "intellectual diversity" means as a concept. How is this article helpful to readers? CC @MediaKyle voorts (talk/contributions) 17:02, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

"The phrase intellectual diversity—like related terms such as political, ideological, or viewpoint diversity—is politically fraught. Commentators today frequently use these terms without bothering to define them, and they often use the same words to mean substantially different things. Even among our group, no clear consensus definition emerged."

What it means as a concept/whatever seems to elude academia as well, so it follows the WP-article will reflect that. It's a challenge, but the article is new. IMO WP:N is satisfied by existing sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Like @voorts, I am baffled at what this article intends to cover. WP:Notability dictates that it is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. Here, one would expect a time-sorted article would explain the term's emergence, but instead we begin with a reference to its use in O'Brien (1992) without any clarity on how intellectual diversity relates to an anarchist's work.

As the lead indicates, the article ultimately becomes a rehashing of Republicans criticizing American universities as left-leaning. Those criticisms are amply covered by existing articles like education policy of the second Trump administration#Universities. If the primary driver for creating this article was apparently User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity, the rejection of that initiative for a similarly ill-defined scope should guide us to merging this into Academic bias#By politics or ideology. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:32, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Anyone can try an afd. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll work on rewriting the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:17, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Wonderful rewrite, @Voorts! The current form is far clearer in focusing on the term as it has been used in criticism of American higher education, as well as commentary recognizing its vagueness. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 01:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Why is it useful to create an article that says "A Harvard think tank said that this term means absolutely nothing. Here are some quotes from random conservative groups/intellectuals who claim it's a thing but only offer vague hand-wavey definitions."? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:00, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. George Ho, who submitted the draft, is a far more experienced Wikipedian than I. They had no need to use AfC to begin with -- I don't want to assume their intentions by submitting it as a draft, but when I submit an article now it's just because I want the comfort of someone else saying "yes, I'd put my name on this" ... It's sort of an extra layer of insulation against a timesink AfD (see WP:AFCPURPOSE). The concept of "intellectual diversity" is clearly a notable topic based on the references, and I think the article is a decent start. If the many backseat drivers on this talk page started editing the article, I think it could be much better than it is now. I, for one, commend George Ho for his effort to traverse this minefield. MediaKyle (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, MediaKyle, for pinging me. For starters, the article was previously a huge, colossal mess when it was moved to the Draft namespace in January 2024 (diff, revision). Soon the AFC banner was added (diff). When I reset the draft's whole content, the draft has been declined a few times (revision).

Well, what motivated me into editing the draft was mainly... well, Larry Sanger drafting a WikiProject in his user namespace. I did mention the then-draft two months back at his talk page. George Ho (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Why are we creating articles based on what a CBANed troll wants to happen? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:01, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll explain further. I neither fully supported nor worshipped Sanger and his actions very much. Indeed, I voted favoring his site ban at the ANI thread about his canvassing.

I first directly contacted him early this year about one of his theses, especially about notability... and pop culture. Then I discovered the draft "Intellectual diversity" when Larry announced the WPID in his talk page... well, just to talk to him out of the WPID or motivate him into working on the article/draft. I had hoped that Larry Sanger would work on the draft itself rather than waste time promoting the WPID (curiously, I'm thinking that ID = identification (also), huh?). Unfortunately, he made decisions that led to his site ban, weeks before the draft was AFC-approved (well, no thanks to him). George Ho (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Afaik, there is no indication that Sanger wants this WP-article to happen (since Wikipedians will work on it, it will lack "true neutrality" anyway.). And if there is, it doesn't matter from the WP-pov. It will be kept or not on other merits than if Sanger wants it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

What about Larry's comment (link) about moving the page back from draft to mainspace? George Ho (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

That does indicate that he wants it, or at least the version he looked at at the time, thanks. Still moot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, when I showed him the then-draft, he was referring to the previous messy lengthy version with bunch of original thoughts there or syntheses of sources. George Ho (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Images needed?

@Dimadick: Is an image needed at this point? I dunno which image would clearly illustrate the topic. Nevertheless, maybe I'm thinking a photo of an individual who used the term/phrase? George Ho (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The topic is essentially different views/ideologies. How about written messages from political demonstrations? Dimadick (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Protest signs from such demonstrations should be related to the essentially different views/ideologies you were referring to. Otherwise, they may not comply with not just WP:IUP but also WP:core content policies. George Ho (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Related:

Please note that WP:RS only applies to citations in articles. If you wish to have it apply to comments on article talk pages, you are free to try to get consensus to change the policy.

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 28#Proposing a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Possible off-wiki canvassing by User:Larry Sanger
• User talk:Larry Sanger
• Intellectual Diversity and the Mission of Higher Education --Harvard University, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study
• 'Very Republican, very patriotic’: right-leaning civic centers now offer courses at US public colleges --The Guardian
• Johns Hopkins works to bolster intellectual pluralism across the university --Johns Hopkins University
• Some Republican states push for new college accreditation agency --NPR
• Intellectual Diversity:Time for Action --American Council of Trustees and Alumni
• Intellectual and Viewpoint Diversity: Importance, Scope and Bounds --Education Sciences Journal
• Commentary: Senate Bill 202: What Exactly is "Intellectual Diversity?" --Indiana Capital Chronicle
• Intellectual Diversity: What Is It and Do We Need It? --The Montana Professor, Spring 2007
• Op Ed: The Academic Case for Intellectual Diversity --The Harvard Crimson
• Editorial: Yes, colleges need more speech protections and intellectual diversity. But the government shouldn’t be forcing their hand --The Boston Globe
• Deep Dive: The Battle for 'Viewpoint Diversity' --Inside Higher Education
• Blog: Intellectual Diversity, Flourishing and the Pursuit of Truth --Psychology Today

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Regarding diversity, intellectual or otherwise, it seems to me that some contributors need to be reminded that this is an international project, and that articles built around the narrow discourse of US politics should, if they actually discuss a notable topic at all (rather than buzzwords that mean different things to different people), avoid misleading implications that the US has a monopoly on debate, or that debates elsewhere mirror that in the US. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

In general, I agree. However, from what I've seen in the literature, "intellecutal diversity" really seems to be a term used exclusively in US culture wars nonsense. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:21, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I did a quick search. They use the term in Guyana but with a different definition; they are talking about what we would call neurodiversity. In the UK they appear to use the phrase "academic freedom" for what many in the US call "intellectual diversity" --Guy Macon (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, voorts has cited your research to remove the link to the "academic freedom" article. Sure, the Brits used it for "intellectual diversity", but to completely remove it from the "See also" section... I just... George Ho (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't mean to remove that. It can be readded. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I think there's enough academic sourcing here that we don't need to rely on snippets of quotes from scholars in newspaper articles to write a good article. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:33, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've rewritten and restructured the article into a more encyclopedic format. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:21, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Your lede ("Intellectual diversity is a term that is generally used by conservative scholars and politicians to describe a perceived lack of ideological diversity in higher education in the United States") makes no sense. Why would anyone use a term describing something to mean a lack of said thing? As for 'more encyclopedic' I can't say I agree. I think all you've succeeded in doing is demonstrating that the topic is pure buzzwordry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I've fixed the lead. The term is clearly notable. It's been in use since the early 2000s and been the subject of debate since then. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:30, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

What do you find unencyclopedic about an article that has a section on the definition and history of the term? You don't need to agree that intellectual diversity is a real thing (I certainly don't) to recognize that one can write an encyclopedia article discussing its definition, tracing its intellectual history, and laying out the (academic and political) debates about it. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:32, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Definitions of terms generally belong in dictionaries. And if the definition amounts to 'people can't agree what this actually means', what exactly is the 'it' you are referring to? What you seem to be trying to document is specific instances within a much broader debate where this specific phrase have been used. We can (and probably should) have an article on the broader debate, but trying to concoct an article about a subset of it that is only distinguished by the use of two specific words in conjunction doesn't seem encyclopaedic to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The term itself has been the subject of significant debate and is having real world impact through legislation and federal policy changes. If you don't think it's notable, start an AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:44, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Just to add, I'm not opposed to taking this to AfD. Your WP:NOPAGE arguments might carry the day. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:00, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Shall I reinsert some sources that you removed for the "Further reading" section, which you also removed? Without "Further reading", how else would readers research "intellectual diversity", especially for further research and essays? George Ho (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

"Further reading" sections are generally disfavored. I looked through all of the further reading citations. None of them discussed the term in depth and they were all largely similar to the sources I removed in that they use the term colloquially, in an irrelevant context, or in passing. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:42, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The sources I removed were largely random news stories that quote random academics opining on the term "intellectual diversity". voorts (talk/contributions) 22:43, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

What about the following older sources from the 20th century?:

• O'Brien, John Conway (1992). "Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Socialist; Karl Marx, Communist – A Comparison". International Journal of Social Economics. 19 (3–5). Bradford, United Kingdom: 72+. eISSN 1758-6712. ISSN 0306-8293. ProQuest 274675903.
• Puddington, Arch (February 1992). "Clarence Thomas and the Blacks". Commentary. Retrieved 2026-06-29.

And some other older sources:

• Perry, Barbara M. (2007). "Chapter 4: 'Can We Sue?' Gratz and Grutter Go to Court". The Michigan Affirmative Action Cases. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas. pp. 63–86. ISBN 978-0-7006-1548-3. LCCN 2007017873.
• de Gobineau, Arthur; Nott, Josiah Clark (1856). The Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races. Translated by Hotze, Henry. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. Retrieved 2026-07-05 – via Google Books.
  • An English translation of de Gobineau's An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races

They may have used the term/phrase in passing, but it's been used in context about especially other subjects, like Clarence Thomas. Furthermore, WP:further reading is not yet a guideline but rather an essay, and I raised an issue there about its current status... (and how it's this essay has been somehow enforced). Also, these sources should be something for readers to use without trying to reuse them for this article.

I also wanna reinsert the below as an "external link":

• House Bill 1087 (2019) at the South Dakota Legislature website

George Ho (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

O'Brien is completely irrelevant to this article. The Clarence Thomas article uses the term colloquially. The Perry chapter uses the term in passing to discuss the views of a single amicus brief. It's not DUE for this article and gives our readers no further information on what the term means. I have no idea how the de Gobineau book is relevant here. As for the South Dakota bill, I would recommend finding a secondary source and adding it to the history section. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:00, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I just now created a Wiktionary entry of "intellectual diversity". George Ho (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

How did you come to those definitions? I'm not seeing support for them in any of the various sources that are cited in the article or that we've discussed. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Both definitions are also extraordinarily broad and could describe various things. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Here's the wikt:Wiktionary:Wiktionary for Wikipedians, which includes wikt:WT:OR saying that Wiktionary has no policy against original research at this time. George Ho (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and the "Wiktionary is not Wikipedia" thing is a rule at wikt:Wiktionary:What Wiktionary is not. George Ho (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

My understanding is that the attestation still needs to be tethered to the actual usage. I understand that you don't need a citation for the definition of a usage. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the talk page at the Wiktionary entry about its appropriateness there. Hopefully someone with significant experience over there sees it and comments. lethargilistic (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:CRITS

That essay is an essay, but still. Criticism sections doesn't generally help article quality. Consider making it Reactions, Academic reception or somesuch. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that this section violates NPOV. If anything, the bulk of the literature on this issue seems to be criticism of it. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:01, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the new heading is improvement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

S. Hrg. 108-380 2003

I'm looking for something decent sourcable to mention this Senate hearing in-text, best I've got so far is , The Cavalier Daily, a WP:RSSM. Is it good enough in context? Is there better coverage?

@Voorts, on this: . I don't think "random podcast" is fair, it's on-topic and the publisher is good. And can you accept the video as a reasonable WP:ELYES 3 for this article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

This is just a conversation with the people who wrote the white paper. It's already covered in the article. I saw something about the senate hearing in another source (perhaps one of the law review articles I cited), but I'm done editing this article for the day. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:20, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The conversation is not the white paper, the discussion/debate adds viewpoints etc. Oh well, consensus will be what it will be. On the whole, I think your re-write was a significant improvement. I'll keep the Template:Press ready, just in case ;-). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@George Ho: the further reading you're adding has nothing to do with the notion of "intellectual diversity" that this article addresses. You are continuing to conflate colloquial uses of the term with the specific usage under discussion in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

You are continuing to conflate colloquial uses of the term with the specific usage under discussion in the article.

All I've done within the past day is adding sources into "Further reading" section without affecting the rest of the article. Since your narrowing the scope has been praised, the least I can do is finding sources that use the phrase/term either extensively or constructively and then being discreet which source to add without cite it for further info that may not belong in the rest of the article. How is "Further reading" section conflating such uses? George Ho (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not relevant further reading and is likely to confuse readers, who would probably expect additional sources on the topic the article covers. If people want to find other uses of the phrase "intellectual diversity" that don't match the notable usage, they can google it . voorts (talk/contributions) 17:11, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

As I hate to admit, I have never wanted this topic or article to get more political than it is now. To do so, the article now illustrates the term/phrase as some right-leaning buzzword. The "Further reading" section never intends for editors to use one of the listed sources to cite/use but should rather give them second thoughts before making any changes to the article itself. (Thinking back about previously citing sources for copyright status of Storm in a Teacup (film) before relegating such sources into "Further reading" and "External links"...)

Of course, I may have (re)discovered {{refideas}} as mentioned by below user and might consider reusing it after adding it just now. However, relegating the sources to {{refideas}} is not just hiding them from readers who don't feel like visiting the talk page. The template can also be overlooked, especially on mobile web (or the mobile app version). George Ho (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

George, I appreciate the work you did on the draft, but it did not summarize the relevant secondary sources, and as I said above, I don't think it was ready for publication in mainspace. The concept is an inherently political one; pretty much every single source, including right-wing sources, says that it is. Many of the sources that you found that use the phrase "intellectual diversity" (such as that article on anarchists) are using it according to the plain meaning of those two words. That plain meaning is not notable and not within the scope of this article. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:36, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

as I said above, I don't think it was ready for publication in mainspace.

...Maybe one of us shall then discuss how to improve the WP:AFC process before something like that happens again... right?

That plain meaning is not notable and not within the scope of this article.

You want me to remove the sources completely from the "Further reading", right? If so, then.... .... ... ... George Ho (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes. It is essentially OR. The sources you've added would be like adding a bunch of stuff about agency (law) to the further reading section of agency (philosophy). The words are the same, but the meaning is completely different. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:01, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Further discussion about the OR policy itself: Wikipedia talk:No original research#Further reading and External links sections not exempt? George Ho (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Using the {{Refideas}} template to collect possible sources for evaluation here on the talk page rather than overcharging the article itself with sources that may prove to be controversial or irrelevant may be a solution. This can be a handy way to keep track of possible sources without inadvertently affecting the quality of the article itself. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

RS/AC

@Voorts, "generally" means the prevailing position. Can you provide any justification for why WP:RS/AC is inapplicable for this claim? Whonting (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

So get rid of the word generally if that's what your hang up is. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:41, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for removing. I still feel uneasy with the summary, although that is likely due to other reasons (not summarising ambivalent/positive responses, mixing criticism of the term with criticism of the concept etc). I'll weigh in above and maybe revisit later. Whonting (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Potential sources

• https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/05/arts/harvard-trump-viewpoint-diversity.html --Hipal (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think the better way to do this is to use {{refideas}} so that this doesn't get swept away by the autoarchive. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  That source doesn't seem to offer a definition of intellectual diversity? I'm not sure how this is connected to the inline tag. lethargilistic (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  NYT: "Since then, at least eight states have proposed or passed legislation seeking to mandate viewpoint diversity (or “intellectual diversity,” as some laws put it) at public institutions." So NYT agrees with the WP-article that they're pretty much the same thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  I meant to tag the prior discussion of the same name. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:25, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Earlier concepts of intellectual diversity

I've skimmed through this article, and it's my impression that the subject is intellectual diversity as a political talking point, which it dates to "the early 2000s".

The term, with a less political meaning, has been in use much longer, e.g.,

• Title of this 1975 book review
• This 1952 paper uses it to describe the reduction of cultural hegemony in the first half of the 1900s
• The editor-in-chief of a journal pledges to promote it in 1978
• The 1982 paper "The Importance of Intellectual Diversity to Educational Quality"

I want to tell a story, in the hope of possibly influencing editors' notions of what the scope of this article could be, or perhaps the scope of a different article with a similar title:

Once upon a time, an esteemed professor retired from the Economics department. The remaining faculty gathered to talk about what they wanted to see in a replacement. They did not talk about personal characteristics such as race or gender; they did not even talk about fame and grant money. Instead, they said: "We've already got a laissez-faire capitalist, a democratic capitalist, a neoliberalist, and a Keynesian.  What we really need in this department, for the sake of intellectual diversity, is some flavor of socialist."

When I look through this article, I don't see anything that looks like this kind of intellectual diversity, but I understand that it's quite the usual goal in a university department, especially the smaller ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

From the article: "The legal scholar Sean M. Kammer stated that the term conflates intellectualism with political ideology, and that it should be redefined as diversity of scholarly work within an academic discipline." I'm sure there are sources other than Kammer that support that definition. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:57, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The term seems to have many definitions. I think the article needs to be renamed, though i dont know to what. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

It does, but I think that many of those definitions are not notable, or it would require OR to write an article about them. As I've noted in other discussions on this talk page, the term is regularly used in a colloquial manner and without definition. To use the sources identified by @WAID as examples:

• The 1978 editor's note uses the term twice. It's not clear to me what the author is referring to other than a vague sense of having a diversity of scholarly views, but that conclusion is OR.
• The 1952 source uses the term once, and I think WAID's reading, while plausible, veers too far into OR to incorporate into the article.
• Although the 1982 paper includes the term in its title, it seems that the paper documents an Association of American Law Schools committee meeting regarding the accredidation of religious law schools. I can't really discern what the author (and/or the committee) meant by "intellectual diversity". As with the other sources, the term is not defined.

As far as I can tell (apart from the use of the term in other varieties of English to mean things like neurodiversity; see the 1975 book review linked by WAID), the only context in which the term has developed a literature that covers it in depth is the one discussed in this article. The fact that other notions of "intellectual diversity" exist does not mean that this article should cover them. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I suggest not using any of these as reliable sources; we should be trying to provide up-to-date scholarly views instead of examples from the previous century. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

As for the article title, I don't think renaminig it would be appropriate because the term is unambiguous. We don't disambiguate unless we need to. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Blue, it's normal for the same word to get used for many concepts (e.g., Cancer, Cancer (constellation), Cancer (mythology), etc.), and we know how to cope with that. In this instance, I don't know whether this should be renamed (e.g., Intellectual diversity (politics) and a second article created at Intellectual diversity (academic concept)), declared to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the scope expanded (e.g., creating a small section at Intellectual diversity#Academic concept), or a separate article created with an unrelated title (e.g., Role of diversity of scholarly work within an academic discipline). Any of the outcomes would work for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we have sufficient sourcing to write a section on that yet. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I haven't found any good sources yet, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The end of Dotson touches on it. Kammer has a passage on it as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I've found a couple of 19th-century eugenics-type sources that use the term to refer to differences in intellectual abilities, but fortunately those are pretty easy to filter out of search results. Mostly it's just a descriptive phrase, without any sort of definition or elaboration. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The English translation of An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, right? Bit of historical curiosity in this context, I don't see any in-article use for it atm. I'm guessing intellectual diversity in that work boils down to "non-white races less good at thinking and morals." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and several contemporary sources citing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Conservatives

The lead should not signal out conservatives until we have a source to back it. ~2026-37746-97 (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Every source in the article substantiates that claim. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The term has been generally used by conservatives for their own political use. How is the lead singling out (that's what you mean, right) conservatives? Well, I appreciate your concerns about how conservatives have been portrayed, but the term itself is very vague and lacks coherent definition at this time. (BTW, why not help out the Wiktionary version of "intellectual diversity" itself?) George Ho (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Linking to this article in Larry Sanger page

What about Gråbergs Gråa Sång's addition of the link to the article in the Larry Sanger article (diff)? If adding the Sanger article is more confusing than useful, why not the same for the other way around? George Ho (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The Sanger article mentions "WikiProject Intellectual Diversity", but doesn't actually link to intellectual diversity. I think a "see also" link is appropriate in that circumstance. This article, on the other hand, does not mention Sanger. Only Wikipedia editors who have been paying attention to the dramaboards and terminally online X users would know about the Sanger dispute. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

New source

• Whittington, Keith (1 April 2026). "The Addison C. Harris Lecture: Intellectual Diversity Mandates and the Freedom to Teach". Indiana Law Journal. 101 (3). ISSN 0019-6665.

I added this, but it's quite long and can probably be used for more stuff, I haven't read more than a a few pages. Good WP:N source if someone wants to have a go at a Senate Bill 202 WP-article.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Possible LLM use?

@~2026-34360-03: Is your recent addition generated from an LLM? This source doesn't use exactly "intellectual diversity", and the other source is paywalled (link). How else can you explain such addition if it's not LLM-generated? Well, your edits on other pages have been reverted for possible LLM use. George Ho (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

For the first question, it's probably not. For the second question, I did try to come up with my own words, but changing the text seems to take a lot of time, so I would change a few sentences again. ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

probably... not? Can you explain why you said probably before not? Furthermore, why not "definitely not"? Also, how would you change a few sentences again? George Ho (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I did change the wording of the text. I thought that the University section should been included in this article. I did paraphrasing, to sound appropriate tone in this article. ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Now I remember and then realize the revision you copied from (revision link). I have re-removed the University section before remembering and realizing it. FWIW, I placed one of sources into {{refideas}}. You're still insistent on reusing one of previously declined revisions, aren't you? Do you still plan on redoing this or reinserting other contents? George Ho (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Still not planning. Only if we reviewed it from the first draft. ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The first draft is the first AFC submission declined (revision), right? Almost no different from the one before I made huge changes (revision, diff) to the article. George Ho (talk) 08:15, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Copy edit

I will begin a routine thorough copy edit since I have the time (informally dedicated to @George Ho). Please do not edit the article during the process. If you have any suggestions, please comment below.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Done. 16dvnk (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC)