By Carlos E. Cortés, 2026 Conference Keynote Speaker

Over my more than half century of involvement in diversity matters, I have developed a fifteen-word framework for decision-making and personal action:

     Look unflinchingly at the past.

     Apply it to the present.

     Then pivot to the future.

I cannot recall a time when it has been more challenging to carry out such a plan, particularly if diversity is involved.  The past is littered with contradictions.  The present is in turmoil.  And the future is murky.

This raises fundamental questions for interculturalists.  Can interculturalists look unflinchingly at their past as they identify their historical strengths and weaknesses?  Can they apply those reflections to the turbulent present, in which the public square teems with loud and strident anti-diversity voices?  Can interculturalists draw upon this reflective practice to build a compelling vision of the future based, in part, on the critical rethinking of their traditional practices?

As a professional historian, I delight in posing and addressing uncomfortable questions about the past.  That includes critically examining the development of the anti-diversity world around us and looking in at the cracks in the diversity mirror in front of us.  Why has history appeared to turn its back on the diversity cavalcade that seemed so triumphant a quarter century ago?  In what respects has the diversity movement contributed to its own problems by counter-productive actions that have squandered public support and relinquished some of its high moral position?  How can interculturalists best draw upon their historical principles while jettisoning clichéd thinking that straitjackets its potential for the future? 

For much of the past decade I have been pondering such questions, particularly in writing my monthly Renewing Diversity column for the ezine American Diversity Report (ADR).  This year I decided to refocus my analysis in a book, Battlefield Dispatches from the Culture Wars: Building Bridges through Constructive Conversations (American Diversity Report Press, 2026).  It is co-authored with ADR editor Debora Levine.  That book consists of nearly four dozen of my past columns reorganized by theme rather than by order of publication.  In addition, Deborah has enriched the book with a superb set of discussion questions and storytelling activities to help organizations and institutions modernize their diversity conversations. 

On November 5, I will expand upon my thinking in my opening keynote for the upcoming SIETAR USA Virtual Conference, “Root & Reach: Grounding Intercultural Practice While Stretching into What’s Next.”  My keynote is entitled “Championing Diversity in an Anti-Diversity World: Reflecting on Principles, Developing Strategies.”

In that talk I will address fundamental questions that interculturalists need to address.  How are we being driven by the past?  What does that mean for the present?  How can we take greater control of and make a greater impact on the future?

This talk will be different in tone from my October 19, 2017, SIETAR national conference keynote address.  That was then; this is now.  We need to confront what historians sometimes call “the harsh logic of events.”  Stuff has happened.  It is counter-productive to operate as if it didn’t.

In particular, two things have happened.  First, anti-diversity forces have risen with remarkable power and virulence. Second, diversity supporters have had difficulty mounting effective pro-diversity counter arguments and strategies, in some respects reflecting long-ignored fissures in diversity thinking.  My talk will address both dimensions of our interculturalist journey.

There was a time not too long ago when the post-1960’s diversity movement, including interculturalism, seemed gloriously triumphant.  One need only recall the euphoria surrounding the 2008 election of President Barack Obama.  We had overcome . . . we thought.  A future of greater inclusivity and equity seemed like a foregone conclusion.  When my four-volume Multicultural America encyclopedia was published in 2013, it seemed like a monument to a definitive diversity victory. 

Yet lurking in the background were forces and trends that were already beginning to disrupt the triumphalist diversity parade.  Opposition to the diversity movement had never disappeared.  Even with the diversity movement’s broad-scale advances, setbacks were still occurring and expressions of opposition, even hatred, were emanating from an increasing number of voices.  Yet we diversity advocates had momentum on our side, we thought.  Opposition seemed like the last gasp of the old order.  Then occurred a series of happenings that set the stage for today’s display of anti-diversity actions and venom.  This has included the unprecedented internet-based spread of anti-diversity ideas and the growth of scholarly challenges to basic diversity premises.     

At the same time, the diversity movement was undergoing its own internal disruptions.  One of the advantages of being ninety-two is that I was around to bear witness to these changes, although at the time I did not recognize their full import.  These disruptions did not begin to become clear to me until 2018, when I launched a new research endeavor as an inaugural fellow of the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement.

I began that sojourn by addressing a simple but perplexing question: why had so many diversity advocates become opponents of the hallowed American tradition of freedom of speech?  I constructed my research around the examination of the half-century journey of diversity and speech since the civil rights movement of the 1960’s.  This included an anatomical exploration of the diversity movement.

It became clear that the movement fell far short of being a monolithic set of ideas, a caricature imposed by both opponents and supporters.  Rather it consisted of different, sometimes conflicting, strands, each with its own values, goals, and strategies.  Over the decades, clashes among these strands revealed the movement’s fissures and sometimes undermined the movement’s moral position.

I concluded that interculturalism has played an important yet somewhat marginal part of the diversity movement.  It has its own principles and practices that sometimes overlap with other parts of the diversity movement, such as the fabled DEI, but in other respects it stands in contrast.  Yet supporters and opponents seldom call attention to these distinctions, being mesmerized by the diversity movement writ large.

Interculturalism stands for bridge-building among groups, usually referred to as cultures.  It stands for the development of voluntary individual and organizational action to foster intercultural understanding.  It stands for recognizing the basic humanity that underlies more visible cultural differences.  It places a primacy on communication, reflected in intercultural communication degree programs.

While other strands of the diversity movement have drawn at times on such principles, they tend to have different emphases.  Equity and inclusion strand advocates, more than interculturalists, tend to focus on larger societal forces rather than on culture per se.  Critical theorists call for challenging historically-created structural impediments, in the process  questioning the very essence of American life and institutions.  Managing diversity strand supporters focus more on creating and operating administrative offices dedicated to making diversity work for the benefit of organizations and institutions.  Therapeutic strand advocates place a greater primacy on personal offense, with an emphasis on such phenomena as microaggressions, trigger warnings, language equity, and personal safety from discomforting speech.

Each of those strands has made constructive contributions to the diversity movement.  At the same time, each of those strands, including interculturalism, has also wandered into counter-productive, sometimes anti-inclusionary, practices.  The result has been a weakening of the diversity movement at large and the squandering of beneficial alliances.  As anti-diversity movement forces gained steam, these internal frictions undermined the diversity movement’s ability to contest the disruptive forces of reaction.

This raises basic questions for interculturalists?  Do we have a sufficiently solid core essence on which to draw to address current anti-diversity challenges, both external and internal?  Do we have sufficient belief in our principles to provide greater thought leadership to the diversity movement writ large?  Are we willing to commit to the challenge of deeper self-examination of the past and present as the basis for visionary and sustainable future-oriented renewal?  These are the kinds of questions upon which I will reflect at my November 5 SIETAR keynote address.             

Dr. Carlos E. Cortés is the Edward A. Dickson Emeritus Professor of History at the University of California, Riverside, and currently co-director of UCR’s Health Equity, Social Justice, and Anti-Racism curriculum. A scholar, educator, consultant, and media advisor, he has lectured internationally on diversity, intercultural communication, education, government, business, and media, and has served as a faculty member at institutions including the Harvard Institutes for Higher Education and the Summer Institute for Intercultural Communication. His books include Multicultural America: A Multimedia Encyclopedia and his memoir Rose Hill: An Intermarriage before Its Time.