I'm assuming nothing of the sort. According to Robert Putnam, all else held equal, racial diversity causes social tension. If causing social tension is a valid

I'm assuming nothing of the sort. According to Robert Putnam, all else held equal, racial diversity causes social tension. If causing social tension is a valid argument against something, this should be an argument against racial diversity. http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.... (sadly it's paywalled) So we are faced with the following choices: a) you can oppose racial diversity AND inequality because both cause social tension, b) you can oppose neither (for this reason, at least), or c) you can be logically inconsistent and therefore incorrect about something. I choose (b). What do you choose?