At first glance the reasons are not obvious for juxtaposing leadership and diversity as the central foci of the Pluribus Unum Casebook. We have chosen to do so because we believe there are good reasons to study them in tandem. Arguably, the only characteristic they share is that neither concept is clearly and consensually defined and there is not a common, societal view about their import to education. But this commonality provides an opportunity for reflection and collaborative inquiry on both topics since the avenues to understanding them both are similar.

In the case of leadership, there are differences of opinion as to its definition, how it is made manifest in schools and from where it is derived. This is especially true of school administration where the meaning of leadership and authority are difficult to separate. In the school setting, the coupling of authority and leadership is most apparent in the case of the principalship. Many have observed that the difference between good teaching and sound leadership is not great. The more widely accepted descriptions of good leaders sound very much like a description of good teachers. Regrettably, that similarity is not mined fruitfully in the design of programs for preparing either teachers or school leaders. It is nonetheless, a helpful concept in attempting to describe how administrators can function as leaders and not simply as persons who wield rule- enforcement authority. All to often, however, the leadership style of school administrators evokes images of less democratic, more arbitrary "rulers" of small fiefdoms.

With respect to diversity there may be even greater disagreement about its significance to schools. All Americans do not have the same opinion about whether it is a positive or a negative concept or whether the schools should promote it. Some educators are optimistic about the pathways to new learning which human diversity offers when it is viewed as an asset rather than an obstacle. Others argue that the aesthetics of diversity are important in diminishing the dull grey which comes from excessive uniformity and sameness. In this view, diversity adds perspective, dimensionality, and depth to the big picture of human life. For those who feel this way, diversity is art.

Still others emphasize ecological aspects of diversity. In this view human diversity, like other forms of diversity found in nature, is more than a pleasant panorama of variety. It reflects the ability of human collectives to adapt successfully to a wide range of environments and challenging conditions. In this view, diversity is a symbol of human strength and spirituality, hence an important tool for coping with a fast-paced world which seems intent on promoting homogeneity and cultural in-breeding. The key to grasping the deeper meaning of diversity, they say, is in nature.

There are, to be sure, those who worry that U.S. society may value diversity too much and that this valuing of diversity and pluralism is dangerous. In this view, schools should be aggressive about promoting a common national identify or at least, a narrower range of differences. This logic suggests that schools should promote a "cultural literacy" based on the literary and artistic traditions of western civilization. This, it is argued, creates a shared understanding in children about the meaning of a common culture as well as a shared sense of our common citizenship. Good teachers and school leaders, it is argued, should be "color blind" about race and language differences. They should regard their students as human beings and citizens first and foremost and downplay the importance of the groups to which they belong. Racial, ethnic, and linguistic identities, some argue, are not choices we make; they are "accidents of fate" since we cannot choose where and to whom we are born. Hence, since much of what we call diversity stems from accidents of history rather than volition or choice, it should not be prized as if it were a personal achievement. Proponents of this view argue that the nation needs more unity and less separation into its component parts. They fear that excessive diversity undermines the potential of education to build a sense of national common purpose. Schools, it is argued, should help young people embrace a shared view of their civic and social humanity.

A closely related idea is that youngsters should not be allowed to turn away from the belief that education is a necessary tool for creating social unity and equity. Those who share this view believe we should rekindle the belief that schools are the best and last hope for achieving equity, morality, opportunity, and social harmony. To abandon that ideal, they say, is to abandon all hope for a just and equitable society. Some critics believe that education has already lost much of its traditional meaning and appeal for certain groups -- the multi-generational urban poor in particular. This loss of faith is dangerous and may be due, at least in part, to the reluctance by school people to promote unifying themes and giving less emphasis to diversity. American culture, they argue, has proven to be superior to all others, and the schools should not be shy of proclaiming that "fact." Critics of the diversity motif also argue that insufficient attention has been paid to the full range of consequences which attend diversity and that the topic is not high on the list of priorities among education researchers.

Another characteristic which is shared by the concepts of diversity and leadership is that neither can be learned or understood well by reading or by listening to lectures. Like everyone else, educators have a sense that they recognize leadership when they see it in action although they may not be sure of its component parts or how it is engendered. Most Americans now believe that leaders are made, not born, and that people somehow learn to be leaders. Leadership, it turns out, is like diversity in that it must be experienced and practiced in order to understand it fully and internalize its lessons for our work. Learning about diversity, like learning about leadership, is more like learning a language or a musical instrument than it is an accumulation of factual knowledge.

It has often been noted, for instance, that effective leaders give the impression of having vast stores of leadership acumen which they do not squander. They hold it in reserve as if waiting for a greater challenge. Our most admired leaders are sometimes compared to athletes or virtuoso performers. They seem to lead (to win or perform) without undue effort. It seems they have a confidence that comes from knowing they possess untapped resources which they can call up at a moment's notice. Similarly, persons who value diversity and who are comfortable with their differences, seem to know deep inside, that they also have different ways of knowing, perceiving, and becoming and that these are valuable attributes.

Finally, it seems advisable to study leadership and diversity together because both topics are difficult topics which require us to think and reflect, singly and in groups, about their deeper meanings in addition to their more visible manifestations. They are not topics which can be mastered in our individual minds. They require high levels of introspection and interaction with others in order to grasp their more arcane aspects. Diversity and leadership are difficult to judge in ourselves, as individuals. Neither can we study our own leadership traits or lacunae without the help of others. Most of us cannot fully understand the meaning of our own diversity -- or that of others -- without opportunities to hold up mirrors to each other in the spirit of collaborative learning.

This is the contextual framework in which the resources of the Pluribus Unum Casebook, version 2.0, may prove useful. <jmg>