<p>The thing is that, as I alluded to earlier, it isn’t the job of any organization in the Greek system to promote diversity. If they choose to make that one of their missions then that is their choice but they are by no means obligated by any stretch of the imagination. </p>
<p>The study doesn’t suppose anything problematic. It merely suggests that we feel comfortable with people that look like ourselves or have similar backgrounds. It actually dispelled the notion that the behavior was intentionally racist. Once again from an evolutionary perspective it makes sense because our ancestors would have need to tell who was from their tribe/clan and would stick with these people in order to have better chances to survive. </p>
<p>Also, we don’t need any interaction at all to end racism. Racism only ends when a group builds respect for a culture and says that their culture is not inherently superior in some way. In fact, the world could be completely segregated and still not have any racism if people of all races believed they were equal. Likewise, a group could have all the interaction with another group and their culture but it doesn’t amount to anything until respect and appreciation starts to form. Interaction and integration are not cures to racism.</p>
<p>Also, it can be argued that diversity is not necessary for the goo of the country or any organization. Just look at China where over 91% of the country is Chinese. They are considered a world superpower or at least up-and-coming. Diversity is not really a tangible advantage; it doesn’t build respect or progress or innovation. Diversity is something nice to have but it doesn’t provide any true advantage for the organization so now my question is why should they promote something that doesn’t give them incentive to promote. They shouldn’t institutionally segregate or discriminate but they also shouldn’t actively promote diversity or equal representation if they choose not to.</p>