Too much diversity.

[Mutant1988]

As a brown person, I've never had any complaints with playing as a white character, or the opposite sex for that matter, because I approach the game with the understanding that I am not the subject of the story.

The question is: Are you fine with you never being similar to the subject of the stories you take part in?

I'd like you to consider the points put forth in this article:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-world-of-childrens-books-is-still-very-white/

It's not video games, but it makes just as valid points about the effect of under-representation and stereotyping.

Variety is good and our society is worse for the lack of it. The reason why so many games keep having white male protagonists isn't because all gamers are white males, but because it is perceived as the norm for games and any attempt to change it or challenge the status quo is shunned as unnecessary.

I don't think we need white male protagonists because we are white males, but because that's what we've always had and change is scary. If someone wants to put a representation or likeness of themselves in a game, or of any other under-represented party, I welcome it.

If I personally can't get into a game because of it having a non-standard protagonist (Because again, issue is established norms, not specific race, sexuality or life style), I'll just buy a different game. Or possibly question why exactly I have such a big problem with it.

Bottom line - Variety is good. Diversity is first and foremost variety. I'd like that, because I like having choices and learning new things.

I don't want people demanding that they get this or that, but I very much doubt that's how most people act and the people that oppose efforts like these, this randomized character generation, seems to only focus on the demands of the most extreme parties.

If unreasonable people keep arguing with unreasonable people, then nothing is accomplished. If a developer just comes out and say - "We will do this thing, because we want diversity", that does not warrant harassment campaigns.

I resent the argument that any attempt at adding diversity or raising the issue of the lack of variety (ie diversity) is pandering or solely attention seeking. How is doing the same thing over and over any less pandering? It's not attention seeking to do the same thing over and over, that's true, but that's because it's not doing anything noteworthy whatsoever.

Personally I don't get that identification from race, gender, sexual preference or whatever, but from a a character's experiences and choices, rational and moral. I have a very hard time playing a character that does not or can not make the same choices I would make, while I really enjoy playing characters that are otherwise as unlike me as possible (it is escapism after all). If anything, the cis white male character is generally very alienating to me, even if I'm one myself. So I rarely view game characters as any form of extension of myself, but more as an exploration of other people. Living their lives for a while, as it were, but according to my choices.

I think the issue is that people always do get things they can identify with in regards to character traits and motivations, but only some of them get to ever identify with appearance, sexuality or culture.

 

[Fallow]

For the people who are going on about how diversity shouldn't be considered a good thing, and how you're fine playing anything so why not just keep it white men all the time, are you fine with looking at something so similar over and over and over again?

You seem to be taking for granted that diversity is a good thing. Can you explain why? (Also in question 2)
I think the last part is something you've concocted purely in your own mind. I haven't seen "let's keep everyone white all the time" yet.

Seriously, we can go on about the social benefits of including women and minorities into things,

Yes, please do that! This is the part I'm so curious about. What exactly are the benefits? Can you show me some solid studies?

... but we could also talk about how adding them in makes things fucking different, if only just visually.

Meh, why not. I do like fucking different, if only to liven things up.

It's boring looking at another generic white guy do things. In a way, I'd compare it to looking at the same art style over and over and over again; I want to look at something different for once, especially if the different appearance lends itself to different perspectives and stories.

Last part makes a lot of sense. This whole thing describes variety though, not diversity.

 

[GundamSentinel]

Personally I don't get that identification from race, gender, sexual preference or whatever, but from a a character's experiences and choices, rational and moral. I have a very hard time playing a character that does not or can not make the same choices I would make, while I really enjoy playing characters that are otherwise as unlike me as possible (it is escapism after all). If anything, the cis white male character is generally very alienating to me, even if I'm one myself. So I rarely view game characters as any form of extension of myself, but more as an exploration of other people. Living their lives for a while, as it were, but according to my choices.

I think the issue is that people always do get things they can identify with in regards to character traits and motivations, but only some of them get to ever identify with appearance, sexuality or culture.

I think so too (and that makes me curious as to why some people do and some don't). And then we come to a question you yourself ask and what I think is extremely important with regards to diversity in games:

Are you fine with you never being similar to the subject of the stories you take part in?

For some people the answer is 'no', and they shouldn't be excluded from gaming or any other form of media. Simple. However, just how far this market should be catered to is another matter. Personally, I don't think a game should have to be inclusive, even when it easily can be, but I'm ready to be convinced otherwise.

 

[Mutant1988]

Always interesting to see how when it comes to diversity there is always the "diversity for divirsity's sake" and at the same time they are perfectly okay with white dude, with stubble basically being shoehorned into every game no matter what the circumstances are no questions.

But everyone else that has a darker skin tone than a light tan better have backstory worthy of a literature award to so much as justify their appearance for any role higher than NPC.

This is also not to mention that devs shoehorning in white dudes all the time is a matter of their own creativity and artistic freedom, but another dev doing the same but with POC and LGBTQ+ people are simply being shallow "sjw" point winning clods.

But don't worry, I'm sure in 50 years gaming will reach a point where people of my demographic and other similar ethnic and sexual groups can be dumped into games and people wouldn't bat an eye at it.

'Role higher than NPC'? My friend, you are giving people opposing diversity in gaming a little too much credit there. I've read entire essays calling out non-white or non-male quest-givers and NPCs for being 'shoehorned' or 'there for the quota', despite not being the focus of the story.

Even as secondary characters minorities gotta be packing 3 novels worth of backstory to justify their existence. 4 novels if the Devs have breathed even a word about diversity anywhere ever.

White male has just become the "default."

Anything else needs to be justified and even when it is - It's derided as nothing but pandering and attention seeking.

Again, norms and fear of change are to blame more so than any racist/homophobic/xenophobic sentiments. People have gotten so used to having their white male blank slate to project onto that they can't even imagine having the exact same thing, in the exact same game, with the exact same personality - Except female, black, asian, latino, native american, aborginial, martian etc.

If it's different, it needs to call attention to why it's different. It can't just be the same thing, because then it's just an unnecessary token effort instead. You do this, you lose. You do that, you also lose.

The argument that it doesn't matter what race, sexuality or gender a character has doesn't matter falls apart the moment you insist on it never being changed.

Last part makes a lot of sense. This whole thing describes variety though, not diversity.

Oh goody - Please do explain the actual difference between those two things, in regards to representation in media.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

Not that I'm interested in playing Rust in any way, but lack of a character creator is a -ve point for me in a lot of games. The idea of having a character creator and then using it to generate a random character and then be unable to change that is, I suppose, an interesting idea with the whole "recognise a player by their avatar" thing that the devs mentioned' but not one that appeals to me, I'd at least allow you to make your own avatar that was fixed at the end of character creation.

In a certain game your race is randomly selected, some players had complaints about not being able to get into the game because they couldn't make a character who looked like them. The extra credits people then make the point that, what about all those gamers who aren't white and male, they might be having the same issues with games.

Anyway, thoughts?

Yeah, they might well be. Doesn't really change what they're saying (the people complaining) unless the same people are saying there shouldn't be diversity of choice, which would make them giant hypocrites or at least incredibly selfish. If they were arguing against a game with a single main character being black/asian/whatever, then yeah sure, but Rust doesn't do that. Maybe the video goes into more depth, but as I'm too lazy to watch the video, the way you've described this makes me think Extra Credit's point is not really a counterpoint to the argument.

That's why I like varied character creators so much, but to have one and then limit choice? Doesn't really work for me I'm afraid.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Christ, I miss the days when the most popular game characters weren't human.

Characters like Crash Bandicoot or Rayman.

This whole "Identification bollocks" issue, wasn't an issue back then.

I mean you'd have to be a monumental bellend to think that Crash is white (he isn't. He's a marsupial).

 

[Fallow]

White male has just become the "default."

Anything else needs to be justified and even when it is - It's derided as nothing but pandering and attention seeking.

Sometimes, this does indeed happen. But not always, I would like to think. Furthermore, sometimes it's warranted, and sometimes it is not. Whether it's necessary or not to "protect" gaming from unwarranted non-whites I shall leave to those who care (something something molehill). This black and white mindset isn't helping anyone.

Again, norms and fear of change are to blame more so than any racist/homophobic/xenophobic sentiments. People have gotten so used to having their white male blank slate to project onto that they can't even imagine having the exact same thing, in the exact same game, with the exact same personality - Except female, black, asian, latino, native american, aborginial, martian etc.

warning! warning!
Saying norms and fear of change activates my ideology guard 2000(patent pending). As a result I now have to ask you to back up this sweeping statement with some factual data.

The argument that it doesn't matter what race, sexuality or gender a character has doesn't matter falls apart the moment you insist on it never being changed.

Good thing you are the only one making this argument then.

Oh goody - Please do explain the actual difference between those two things, in regards to representation in media.

Variety refers to frequency and options.
*If you create 100 male characters with skin colour ranging from pitch black to stark white and random body types, that is variety. Likewise, pointing out that you don't want all games to be homogeneous is a request for variety. Compare C&C with Starcraft, you will find them varied, i.e. not the same.

Diversity has multiple "private" definitions as it relates to media, none which conflict with the variety definition above.
*If you want options to be diverse you are requesting they be different from one another. The above examples are not diverse, since Starcraft and C&C share many similarities, and all 100 characters created are still male.
If you create two characters, one a redskinned lesbian aboriginal with amputated legs and stomach cancer, and one an alien from Zeta Kappa Klondyke 5 in the Fuglybutt galaxy (not lesbian, and with 16 legs), that is diversity. Note that you only have two options here, but they are very different.
*A second definition would be the inclusion of all fringe minorities at surprising rates (like DA:I romantic options). Since @LifeCharacter only requested awesome games (and implied[footnote]according to me[/footnote] they should be innovative) and everything not being homogeneous, without making any specific requests for particular genders etc, I don't think this applies here.
*If you want the rabid kind (what I call "Wu diversity"), then anything that isn't white cis male counts towards diversity. I would rather we focus on something rational though, and I doubt anyone posting on the Escapist would consider this a practical solution.

 

[Mutant1988]

The argument that it doesn't matter what race, sexuality or gender a character has doesn't matter falls apart the moment you insist on it never being changed.

Good thing you are the only one making this argument then.

Vehemently opposing any attempts at improving diversity or even bringing up the issue of the lack of diversity being met with hostility is objecting to change - ie insisting that nothing is changed and that nothing is challenged.

Or are you saying that these people are fine with change, as long as no one actively says they want to change things? Because it seems like the moment that someone express an intent, their motives are questioned, their reasons derided, their attempts dismissed.

Oh goody - Please do explain the actual difference between those two things, in regards to representation in media.

Variety refers to frequency and options.
*If you create 100 male characters with skin colour ranging from pitch black to stark white and random body types, that is variety. Likewise, pointing out that you don't want all games to be homogeneous is a request for variety. Compare C&C with Starcraft, you will find them varied, i.e. not the same.

Diversity has multiple "private" definitions as it relates to media

Stop, stop! Didn't take you long to get it wrong.

You confuse diversity and inclusivity. Diversity is synonymous with variety.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diverse

If you interpret it any other way, then you're misunderstanding what the word actually means. If you have a human character, but only represent one kind of human character, that's neither varied nor diverse. Because those two things are synonymous.

You can say that having an alien protagonist is varied, but that's moving the goal posts. This is specifically about how humans are represented and how there is a lack in variety.

Or rather, the issue is that any attempt at improving variety/diversity is attacked.

Inclusivity on the other hand is putting into a game characters that anyone conceivably playing the game can identify with. Which is usually just not a realistic goal.

Again, norms and fear of change are to blame more so than any racist/homophobic/xenophobic sentiments. People have gotten so used to having their white male blank slate to project onto that they can't even imagine having the exact same thing, in the exact same game, with the exact same personality - Except female, black, asian, latino, native american, aborginial, martian etc.

warning! warning!
Saying norms and fear of change activates my ideology guard 2000(patent pending). As a result I now have to ask you to back up this sweeping statement with some factual data.

Read the article I linked about children's books and the issues those face in getting published and marketed. The publishers have a bias because they have a pre-conceived norm and because the majority of books published adhere to that norm then the people reading also end up considering it a norm and the default.

That it starts at an early age with children's books only aggravate the issue at a later age.

The issue is cyclical and won't change itself. Which is why it's so obnoxious to see people deride any active attempt at changing things or doing something different.

If it really, genuinely doesn't matter - Then why does the majority of characters fall into so few archetypes in regards to personality, race, sexuality and culture?

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

I've never really cared about what colour, sex, shape etc. the player character is, just give me a good game. Hell, my favourite series is probably the Ratchet and Clank games and I am neither small, furry and orange nor tiny, silver and made of metal. Clearly I do not personally need a character to resemble me in order to connect with them. Just give me one of those death-cannons that pumps out the 1812 Overture while annihilating my enemies and we're best of buds.

On the subject of simply having more dudes who aren't white guys with brown hair as our player character though? Yeah, thats probably something that should be happening

 

[Sleepy Sol]

While I have to agree that it's a cool sociological experiment, I really can't see how the way Rust implements its character generation would help me "relate" to other ethnic groups any better than I currently am. There's not really any particular tale associated with the game or any of the characters it generates. You're not playing fleshed out characters, just a randomly generated socially blank canvas.

I think that really, lack of choice in this facet of a game (character creation) can be implemented very effectively, but Rust just took one step with that idea and stopped immediately. Then again, at that point you're just talking about...well, pre-constructed characters in general. Just with more actual characterization attached, hopefully.

Personally, I've never been big on "immersion" in games, and I don't really care what *anything* my character is. I usually view them as mediums for entertaining and interactive stories, something fun as a cooperative and social experience with friends, or as a competitive outlet. But it would be cool to see games with greater racial and ethnic diversity.

 

[Ariseishirou]

It's always worthy of a few chuckles how many people will declare that "race/gender doesn't matter" when they're playing games, but the moment someone makes it mandatory for them to play a non-white, non-male character, suddenly it does matter, because they're "forcing" diversity. Son, I'm forced to play a dude the overwhelming majority of the time I play any game with a set protagonist. And yes, it is almost always a straight white dude to boot. You can't have your cake and eat it too: claim that that's fine that so many set protagonists are Video Game Steve because Video Game Steve's race/gender "doesn't matter," then cry to high heaven every time you don't have a choice but to play someone who doesn't share the same race or gender as Video Game Steve.

 

[SecondPrize]

They've gone so far downhill. Last week it was hatred is bad because sadism. This week it's "sometimes art can make you feel uncomfortable." You don't get to have it both ways.
Also, anyone who knows the slightest bit about Gazza can see that they're putting words in his mouth. He's not doing this for a social experiment. He's doing this for the lulz. He's never shown himself to be hesitant in trolling people.

 

[Mong0]

As a brown person, I've never had any complaints with playing as a white character, or the opposite sex for that matter, because I approach the game with the understanding that I am not the subject of the story.

The question is: Are you fine with you never being similar to the subject of the stories you take part in?

Similar how? Physically, yes, I'm fine with that. Similarity of mind is the only thing that really matters to me, and if the writing is good enough, I don't even really need that. Bottom line for me is that I want the game to be good; I don't really care about anything else.
[br/]
Personally, I would rather that activism not be an aspect of the hobby that I've invested over a decade into. In my experience, creating a narrative around a set of ideals, rather than letting it go in whatever direction its foundation and logic would imply that it should go in, lessens its quality. This would become an issue when creating a game with diversity as a core moral, because, should the plot touch on that subject, they'll be restricted to only presenting the side of the issue that the game is designed to support. Thats not just an issue with diversity either, any moral, when it becomes too sacred for the creators to criticize, will lessen the quality of the narrative. This sort of thing results in shallow characterizations, as the writer only tests the character with scenarios that support his cause, rather than thoroughly testing them with many varying scenarios so that the audience can see what they're made of. Alternatively, I've seen bias present in how the character responds, regardless of scenario, making them seem unresponsive and unintelligent.

 

[werewolfgold]

Why exactly is diversity good or necessary? I keep seeing posts about needing more diversity in games, but I've never seen any arguments for why we need more diversity in games (I've heard opinions, but not arguments).

Is it just "common sense", like "games causes sexism"?

Why is it "bad" with a game of all black/white/yellow people? Why must all colors (not to mention genders, disabilities, and body sizes) be included? What is the benefit?

Humans are extremely quick to both categorize an "other" and then dehumanize them. Sometimes, slightly. Sometimes, severely. But, it's a well documented fact. From just people who root for a different sports team than you, to people who have a darker skin tone than you. Fill in the blanks with whatever else. I trust that you have enough knowledge of, well, all of human history to just accept this and the consequences that can result.

If someone is say, geographically isolated from people that aren't "them" so to speak, e.g. you live in a predominantly WASP, well-off, neighborhood, then media grants you access to people that aren't you. Thus people are granted more chances to empathize with the "other" and are less prone to dehumanize them. Now, likely, the best way to empathize is with face-to-face real people. But, ya know. Take it where you can get it. Humans can be laughably simple. And even challenging small, dumb opinions here and there, like black people are all criminals or women are all fragile, emotional wrecks, by giving you a way to put yourself in the shoes of that "other" as a more positive role model, leads to more harmonious relations all around. It also helps if you catch people young, before dumb opinions get hard coded in and seeing anything to the contrary just makes their brain implode and therefore less likely to change their opinions even evidence, which is also a documented thing. Stupid humans. How have they survived this long...?

And that's why many people kind of facepalm at the notion of basically no one except gritty, white men allowed to be the heroes all the time. Because if that's all you ever see, and you have no data that states otherwise, your brain will take to that notion and hold onto it as how the world works. Maybe it's okay if you yourself are a gritty, white male. But, it's not so good for your self-esteem if you're not that. Hell, I'd say that even Japan needs a good slap to the face with the diversity stick.

So, diversity and more visibility can help in ways that are not just personal preference. One single game doesn't have to have all of the colors of the wind. But, it'd be nice to be able to take a sample size of 100 or so and not be forced to cringe.

 

[asdfen]

I am appalled that I cannot play as bisexual squirl from outerspace in every game that is made in my immage that clearly states that I am strong emancipated black woman of mexican origins

 

[Mutant1988]

As a brown person, I've never had any complaints with playing as a white character, or the opposite sex for that matter, because I approach the game with the understanding that I am not the subject of the story.

The question is: Are you fine with you never being similar to the subject of the stories you take part in?

Similar how? Physically, yes, I'm fine with that. Similarity of mind is the only thing that really matters to me, and if the writing is good enough, I don't even really need that. Bottom line for me is that I want the game to be good; I don't really care about anything else.
[br/]
Personally, I would rather that activism not be an aspect of the hobby that I've invested over a decade into. In my experience, creating a narrative around a set of ideals, rather than letting it go in whatever direction its foundation and logic would imply that it should go in, lessens its quality. This would become an issue when creating a game with diversity as a core moral, because, should the plot touch on that subject, they'll be restricted to only presenting the side of the issue that the game is designed to support. Thats not just an issue with diversity either, any moral, when it becomes too sacred for the creators to criticize, will lessen the quality of the narrative. This sort of thing results in shallow characterizations, as the writer only tests the character with scenarios that support his cause, rather than thoroughly testing them with many varying scenarios so that the audience can see what they're made of. Alternatively, I've seen bias present in how the character responds, regardless of scenario, making them seem unresponsive and unintelligent.

So you want narratives that are completely non-committal to any sort of stance whatsoever? I'm sorry, but those don't exist.

Because every character has motivations - ie, ideals they strive towards. And every narrative has a moral to convey. If you have conflict, then you have morals, because one side is right and one is wrong. Or rather, one side has relate-able motivations and the other does not.

Or both are wrong and the game is an exploration of immorality, or both are right and it's an exploration of differing morality. But a moral stance is always present, except in the most basic kinds of games.

And I do believe the general idea is to have games with diversity that isn't explicitly about diversity.

And the medium - All mediusm - Have had activism since their inception. With video games, it has ranged from developers wanting to be recognized for the work they do, modern gamers wanting to cast off the stigma of video games being for kids and all the campaigns and attempts to censor and ban video games.

 

[loa]

Not being able to immerse yourself into a story because the protagonist doesn't reflect you seems like a pretty flimsy argument at best and thinly veiled bigotry at worst, given the context of "ohnoes, I am teh blacks now!".
I for once was perfectly fine playing as spyro, amaterasu, lara croft, bayonetta, marcus fenix, master chief, and random zombie dude with a halberd and I would give an equal amount of fucks if the main character was black but I can't think of any black game protagonists off the top of my head right now if we presume cynder the dragon doesn't count.

 

[Worgen]

I never understood the "can't get immersed because of MC's X": you play a vampire, riding unicorns in a fantasy land, wait, that vampire is WHITE?! IMMERSION GONE!

In the end it falls apart because it's a fucking video game with zombies and crafting, not some deep game that actually expands on it. Not to mention that a company doing a huge publicity stunt and then lamenting how they did it from the kindness of their hearts rather than boost awareness doesn't sound very truthful.

So... then you agree that we need more diversity? Because your point about "I never understood the "can't get immersed because of MC's X": you play a vampire, riding unicorns in a fantasy land, wait, that vampire is WHITE?! IMMERSION GONE!" means that having something other then a white guy as a main character is good.

Or am I missing your point?

If I understood correctly you're missing my sarcasm, the vast majority of games are fantastical in one way or another so it seems to me that if you can relate to a character despite him living jn a completely different world but consider that character not having the same sex/race what breaks your immersion (not for example, giant worms) then it's extremely silly.

Also, I'll add the classic "if you want games with an X lead (X being a minority), than play a game from a country where X is the majority", why should american/european studios not go for most of the people in their countries?

Personally I don't get needing to look like a character to be able to be immersed, as I said earlier, I play what is as different as possible from myself irl.

The thing is that idea doesn't really work, if it did then we would have a lot more female and black leads. Keep in mind the population of the US is roughly 50% female and 15% black. Yet we see an overwhelming amount of game characters just being some variation of white dude.

 

[Fallow]

The argument that it doesn't matter what race, sexuality or gender a character has doesn't matter falls apart the moment you insist on it never being changed.

Good thing you are the only one making this argument then.

Vehemently opposing any attempts at improving diversity or even bringing up the issue of the lack of diversity being met with hostility is objecting to change - ie insisting that nothing is changed and that nothing is challenged.

Or are you saying that these people are fine with change, as long as no one actively says they want to change things? Because it seems like the moment that someone express an intent, their motives are questioned, their reasons derided, their attempts dismissed.

Oh goody - Please do explain the actual difference between those two things, in regards to representation in media.

Variety refers to frequency and options.
*If you create 100 male characters with skin colour ranging from pitch black to stark white and random body types, that is variety. Likewise, pointing out that you don't want all games to be homogeneous is a request for variety. Compare C&C with Starcraft, you will find them varied, i.e. not the same.

Diversity has multiple "private" definitions as it relates to media

Stop, stop! Didn't take you long to get it wrong.

You confuse diversity and inclusivity. Diversity is synonymous with variety.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diverse

If you interpret it any other way, then you're misunderstanding what the word actually means. If you have a human character, but only represent one kind of human character, that's neither varied nor diverse. Because those two things are synonymous.

You can say that having an alien protagonist is varied, but that's moving the goal posts. This is specifically about how humans are represented and how there is a lack in variety.

Or rather, the issue is that any attempt at improving variety/diversity is attacked.

Inclusivity on the other hand is putting into a game characters that anyone conceivably playing the game can identify with. Which is usually just not a realistic goal.

Again, norms and fear of change are to blame more so than any racist/homophobic/xenophobic sentiments. People have gotten so used to having their white male blank slate to project onto that they can't even imagine having the exact same thing, in the exact same game, with the exact same personality - Except female, black, asian, latino, native american, aborginial, martian etc.

warning! warning!
Saying norms and fear of change activates my ideology guard 2000(patent pending). As a result I now have to ask you to back up this sweeping statement with some factual data.

Read the article I linked about children's books and the issues those face in getting published and marketed. The publishers have a bias because they have a pre-conceived norm and because the majority of books published adhere to that norm then the people reading also end up considering it a norm and the default.

That it starts at an early age with children's books only aggravate the issue at a later age.

The issue is cyclical and won't change itself. Which is why it's so obnoxious to see people deride any active attempt at changing things or doing something different.

If it really, genuinely doesn't matter - Then why does the majority of characters fall into so few archetypes in regards to personality, race, sexuality and culture?

Not going to bother much with this, but I'll give it a quick rundown.

vehemently opposing.... hostility... strawman this... strawman that.... being dismissed...

seriously? No one is persecuting you. Noone is being hostile. Your attempts being dismissed is only because you make outrageous claims and strawman arguments.

Oh goody - Please do explain the actual difference between those two things, in regards to representation in media.

Stop, stop! Didn't take you long to get it wrong.

You confuse diversity and inclusivity. Diversity is synonymous with variety.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diverse

If you interpret it any other way, then you're misunderstanding what the word actually means. If you have a human character, but only represent one kind of human character, that's neither varied nor diverse. Because those two things are synonymous.

'Nough said.

Read editorial and you will see ...

Read it. Not a single one of your claims can be backed up by that editorial (and not a single attempt is made either, it's not even on the topic you use it for). Not to mention that it's an editorial, i.e. opinion piece. There's not a single word in there dedicated to explaining why children must be taught to appreciate diversity via childrens books.