Organizations, nations, societies, clubs form around commonalities. Of interest, of purpose, of needs. Everyone in the group is seeking the same goal which spurs them all to action and unites them against adversity.
Without commonalities, there is no impetus to form a group and no incentive to remain a group. The members have to hold something in common.
What does diversity do for a group?
It provides a variety of skills and abilities. A variety of viewpoints and experience on which to draw for planning and responding to challenges.
But diversity does not provide a rally point.
Those within a group may have individual goals with which the group is willing to assist, perhaps even in a way that delays or does not necessarily further the group's common interest. A more fulfilled individual can often better contribute to the mission of the group as a whole, so investing resources in such a way is advantageous.
But diversity becomes a vulnerability if a group shifts focus to cater to small subgroups as a priority, using up resources, goodwill, and time members would otherwise have expended on the common goal, something everyone wanted, including those in the subgroup. If the entire group never advances its purpose, even those in the subgroup being favored will lose faith in the mission and splinter away.
Group resources should always be allotted first to group goals, and whatever remains extra can be directed to individuals in need of the group's assistance. If individuals within a group wish to pool their personal resources into a new, smaller subgroup, they are typically free to do so. But it cannot be expected that all others in the main group are interested, inclined, or even approving of the subgroup's goals. And it's no betrayal of the larger group to be unimpressed with the subgroup.
The commonality between members should be the focus. Highlighting the difference simply for the purpose of pointing them out is fruitless. It's only going to uncover contentions which otherwise would have remained unvoiced, or left as more personable interpersonal disputes rather than membership-wide shouting matches.
Take the example of flags. Very often flags are raised over nations, societies, and armies. If you raised the flag of the United States of America, all my extended family could rally under that flag. If you raised the flag of Kansas, my brothers and I would still rally, but some of my uncles would not be drawn. Then if you raised the flag of Kansas State University, then one of my brothers and myself would rally, but the youngest would not be drawn, he attended Pitt State. Raise the flag of Kansas University, and perhaps all three of us would be uninterested or perhaps openly hostile.
The American Civil War and the Revolutionary War, I believe, were plagued by such nested tribalism, with armies raised in different states cooperating poorly.
For myself, I'm careful to avoid raising a divergent banner within the realm of another flag. I'm a 2nd Amendment advocate, but I won't even wear my blank desert camo hat into my church on a Sunday morning, let alone wear a "Molon labe" (Come and take it) t-shirt. I'm not one who has any particular interest in professional sports, but neither would I wear a jersey into the sanctuary. (Yes, my church has a very relaxed mode of dress.)
So be careful how you raise flags. When rallying under a particular flag, be wary of the one who raises their own flag and claims you must also rally to them and anyone who doesn't is also a traitor to the first flag.
And be careful how you tout the diversity of your membership, because that's an allocation of resources, however minute it may seem, that could have been spent on commonalities. And you're recognizing members not for their contributions to the common goal, but for their personal attributes and decisions.
I don't mean to create hive minds or demand rigid adherence to laws or creeds or mission statements. Indeed, I give this advice seeking to avoid such, for with the splintering of a group into smaller pieces, each new group is only more focused and fanatical as a result.
If you're a part of a group, a team, a society work with good faith in pursuit of the common goal. If you want something else as well, work on it quietly. If others willingly join you, so be it, perhaps you will a achieve an appropriate majority and can safely include your new desires among the commonalities of the larger group. Or perhaps you will remain a small subgroup, in which case you should remain grateful for the space afforded you by the larger group.
But if your desires give rise to a squawking cadre demanding equal allocation of resources from the group for goals by which only a small number will benefit, you'll achieve, in the end, a dissolution of the group that raised you up in the first place as members leave, finding the commonality which drew them to be lost. And then you've lost some of that vaunted diversity. And perhaps you'll realize, in the end, your personal goals mean nothing without the larger group to house them.
Because I must,
Jesse
"You have to understand...I just wanted a country I could be proud of."
"Instead of being a man your country could take pride in. No, I don't understand."