Why Is Diversity Focused Only On Race & Species?

[Christopher]

^But it's also consistent with what I said. If there's no ratings benefit to skewing the cast's ethnic makeup, then "Why would you want to?"

[CorporalCaptain]

You wouldn't, of course. It's the only possible consideration, though. And it's worth mentioning because it has been practiced and heavily.

[Bry_Sinclair]

Knight Templar wrote:

---

We hear lots of talk about a Star Trek series needing a "diverse cast".

"Diverse" in this sense seems to always mean different races for the human members of the crew and for different alien species for the nonhuman crew members.

Isn't this a pretty narrow minded view of diversity?

What about diversity of values, morals, character, personalities?

What would be your ideas on a 'diverse' crew then? Who would be you Captain, First Officer, etc? What would drive them? Why are they in Starfleet? What beliefs do they hold dear?

Some character blurbs would be handy to emphasise the point you are trying to make.

[NrobbieC]

But there are diverse morals, ethics, personalties etc, I don't know what hole you're talking out of.

Sexuality however...

[Mars]

Bry_Sinclair wrote:

---

What would be your ideas on a 'diverse' crew then? Who would be you Captain, First Officer, etc? What would drive them? Why are they in Starfleet? What beliefs do they hold dear?

Some character blurbs would be handy to emphasise the point you are trying to make.

One possibility would be to have a gruff captain, and crew that don't get along with each one pursuing his or her own agendas sort of like Battlestar Galactica.

[NrobbieC]

Mars wrote:

---

One possibility would be to have a gruff captain, and crew that don't get along with each one pursuing his or her own agendas sort of like Battlestar Galactica.

So, Terran Empire then

[Knight Templar]

NrobbieC wrote:

---

So, Terran Empire then

There are other concepts.

1) A Sipowitz style captain (NYPD Blue). Basically a stand up good guy but often rude, crude, clumsy socially, and abrasive.

2) A Vic Mackey style captain (The Shield). A very dangerous and deeply flawed man who is ultimately trying to do good things (take bad guys off the streets) but is willing to use the absolute most evil techniques possible to do so.

[NrobbieC]

Knight Templar wrote:

---

There are other concepts.

1) A Sipowitz style captain (NYPD Blue). Basically a stand up good guy but often rude, crude, clumsy socially, and abrasive.

2) A Vic Mackey style captain (The Shield). A very dangerous and deeply flawed man who is ultimately trying to do good things (take bad guys off the streets) but is willing to use the absolute most evil techniques possible to do so.

I've never heard them but sounds a bit like

1) Season 1 Picard

2) Captain Ransom

[Christopher]

NYPD Blue? The Shield? You're asking for Star Trek to become something it fundamentally isn't and never should be. There are already fifty zillion dark and cynical shows on TV and five hundred gajillion dark, dystopian science-fiction futures in both fiction and literature. What makes Star Trek special is its optimism, its inspirational nature. It's important that there be at least some fictional franchises out there that try to do something different than the same old cliched negativity.

True, there have been times when ST has pushed its heroes to darker places -- Sisko in the Dominion War, Janeway in "Equinox," Archer in the Xindi arc. But there have always been limits, and those have been the exceptions, not the rule. If what you want to see are protagonists that are always that dark, or even worse, then you do not want Star Trek. And there's no shortage of cynical, ugly, negative franchises out there to give you what you want.

[NrobbieC]

Ah, In the Pale Moonlight, what an excellent episode.

[chardman]

Basically, Knight Templar wants Star Trek to feature the kind of diverse personalities that would realistically never make it past the presumably thorough psych evaluations that Starfleet undoubtedly requires all of its cadets/personnel. If someone's motivations for exploring the galaxy are rooted in getting revenge, or fulfilling some fanatical quest, or anything else so psychotic as what he's suggested as possible motivations, one would hope that they'd be culled from the program prior to graduating from the Academy, and would never, ever make it so far as a shipboard posting.

[JoeZhang]

From his previous posts, I would think he wanted it to feature a group of aryan looking clansmen riding around on the USS Hitler.

[T'Girl]

Bry_Sinclair wrote:

---

What would drive them? Why are they in Starfleet? What beliefs do they hold dear?

Look at the reasons that young people today join the armed services. Serve their country, start their lives, education, adventure, leave home and community, work, three square meals a day.

Many are seeking to reinvent themselves, in basic training a new person is born.

Bry_Sinclair wrote:

---

What would be your ideas on a 'diverse' crew then?

In Penpals, a discussion between the senior officers revealed that they don't all agree on the Prime Directive. Take it further, a officer who conforms to the Prime Directive as part of her duties, but comes from a culture (on a Federation member planet) that opposes the very concept of the PD, and in discussions she openly advocates alternatives.

In The Enemy and Masterpiece Society, we saw two cultures that believe in killing children who aren't societal acceptable. Have a officer in Starfleet whose culture believes the same.

Increase the strangeness factor on officers who are Vulcans. They live 250 years and the average family has (hypothetically) 20 odd children, the reason they send them into the desert on the kas-wan test is because they want most of them to die.

Junk Star Trek's "modern secular liberalism" as a standard. Because our characters are a diverse group, only a few of our heroes will embrace this particular philosophy.Their beliefs on economics, religion, politics, government, capitalism, socialism are very different from each other.

Have a officer who fully lives Picard's no money - better ourselves philosophy, won't eat food or wear clothing that isn't obtained without money. And right next to him is another officer who enjoys having access to money, is seen spending it, maybe has investments and a business outside of his Starfleet duties, sees nothing wrong with it. Have the two (as a "C-story") get in the occasional arguments on their differing positions.

Something similar, two officers, one a person of faith, the other a atheist. Make them best friends, and while we're at it make them Humans. The two of them (jokingly) pushing their individual interpretation of the events in various episodes from their own perspectives. Kind of like the friendly banter between McCoy and Spock.

NrobbieC wrote:

---

Sexuality however...

Diversity here too? Yes already.

chardman wrote:

---

... the kind of diverse personalities that would realistically never make it past the presumably thorough psych evaluations that Starfleet ...

But when does the screening process stop being about the best interests of the service, and become about loading Starfleet with people of a selected pre-existing mindset? Not everyone in the Federation is Human, why would Federation society (and Starfleet's selection process) be determined by Human viewpoints?

[NrobbieC]

18 smileys in one post...that's got to be a record

[Christopher]

T'Girl wrote:

---

Junk Star Trek's "modern secular liberalism" as a standard. Because our characters are a diverse group, only a few of our heroes will embrace this particular philosophy.Their beliefs on economics, religion, politics, government, capitalism, socialism are very different from each other.

And we had plenty of characters in DS9 who didn't agree with the mainstream Starfleet view. VGR had the Maquis to challenge Starfleet's political standards (though they didn't do so often enough due to network pressure) and Seven of Nine to challenge Federation ethics on a regular basis.

Have a officer who fully lives Picard's no money - better ourselves philosophy, won't eat food or wear clothing that isn't obtained without money. And right next to him is another officer who enjoys having access to money, is seen spending it, maybe has investments and a business outside of his Starfleet duties, sees nothing wrong with it. Have the two (as a "C-story") get in the occasional arguments on their differing positions.

DS9 often pitted the Ferengi's capitalist values against the Federation's post-scarcity standards, and was sympathetic toward both.

Something similar, two officers, one a person of faith, the other a atheist. Make them best friends...

And their names are Kira Nerys and Ben Sisko. Seriously, just about everything I'm hearing here is something that DS9 or some other Trek series has already done. So I really don't understand the allegation that Trek has somehow failed to go there.

But when does the screening process stop being about the best interests of the service, and become about loading Starfleet with people of a selected pre-existing mindset? Not everyone in the Federation is Human, why would Federation society (and Starfleet's selection process) be determined by Human viewpoints?

Well, that's hardly fair. Just because limits exist, that doesn't mean the limits are narrow and restrictive. You can allow for a great deal of diversity and individuality yet still screen out people who are actually unstable, reckless, or dangerous to themselves and others. And who the hell said anything about "human viewpoints?"