Skip to content

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The most and least diverse states in America

most and least diverse states
KeithBinns/Getty Images

How do we define diversity in the United States? The census offers breakdowns by age, race, gender and other characteristics. Or we could also look at party registration and election results to measure political diversity.

But what if we could combine various factors to determine which are truly the most and least diverse states in the country? We can now, because the number-crunchers at WalletHub developed an algorithm and ranking of their own.

And the results show both red and blue states spread throughout the list, because political diversity is one of the factors included in the calculations.

“When most people hear the word “diversity”, they think of race/ethnicity. However, many types of diversity include socioeconomic status (e.g., education, income, and occupation), religion, political ideology, household size, immigrant status, language, and geography. States are also diverse within them. Depending on where a person lives in a state, such as in an urban, suburban, or rural area, can dictate what they experience culturally,” said Rashawn Ray, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Every state was scored in six categories of diversity: socio-economic, cultural, economic, household, religious and political. The highest score went to liberal California, which was followed closely by conservative Texas.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The Golden State ranked first in both socio-economic and cultural diversity. While Texas didn’t lead in any categories, it was fourth in cultural diversity, sixth in religious diversity and ninth in socio-economic diversity.

The rest of the top 10 is dominated by states from the East Coast and Southwest: Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico, Florida, Maryland, Nevada and Arizona.

Source: WalletHub

“Living in a diverse environment makes it easier to see that even if there are differences, most of us share similar goals and priorities like keeping our families healthy and safe, educating our kids in a supportive environment, and earning a good living,” said Andrew Burnstine, an associate professor in Lynn University’s College of Business and Management.

The 10 least diverse states, according to WalletHub, are (from 41 to 50): Iowa, Ohio, Utah, Wyoming, Kentucky, Montana, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine and West Virginia.

West Virginia ranks last in both the socio-economic and cultural diversity categories, and in the bottom 10 in religious and political diversity.

Government should take advantage of the nation’s diversity, according to researchers and academics consulted by WalletHub.

“The United States could highlight the achievements of diverse individuals and groups. States could also make data-driven decisions about which groups may need additional support to thrive and in what ways,” said Lori Martin, a professor of African and African American Studies, humanities and social sciences at Louisiana State University. “This may include supporting under-resourced schools and black-owned businesses. States must demonstrate a commitment to equity, which is not the same as equality.”

WalletHub broke the six categories down into 14 data points, including household income, education, race, birthplace, occupations, marital status, age, religion and political affiliation.

States were also ranked within those subcategories. Among them:

  • Income: Utah was at the most diverse; Mississippi was the least.
  • Educational attainment: Massachusetts; West Virginia.
  • Race and ethnicity: Hawaii; Maine.
  • Language: California; West Virginia.
  • Birthplace: Nevada; Louisiana.
  • Industry: Texas; Massachusetts.
  • Occupation: Mississippi; Massachusetts.
  • Worker class: Alaska; Indiana.
  • Marital status: Mississippi; Utah.
  • Generations: Florida; Utah.
  • Household type: New Mexico;
  • Household size: Utah; West Virginia.

Read the full report.

Read More

Donald Trump and J.D. Vance

Vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, standing next to former President Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention, said President Biden's campaign rhetoric "led directly to President Trump's attempted assassination."

Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Assassination attempt will fuel political extremism

Khalid is a physician, geostrategic analyst and freelance writer.

President Joe Biden’s initial response to the attack on Donald Trump, calling it “sick” and reaching out to his stricken adversary to express support, was commendable. Statements from other prominent Democrats, including former President Barack Obama and Vice President Kamala Harris, as well as notable Republicans like former President George W. Bush and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, echoed this sentiment of unity and concern.

In contrast, the response from some on the right — engaging in finger-pointing and blaming Democrats for their heated rhetoric — proved less productive. Vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, for instance, asserted that Biden's campaign rhetoric "led directly to President Trump's attempted assassination," seemingly in reaction to recent comments from Biden suggesting, "It’s time to put Trump in a bullseye." This divisive rhetoric only exacerbates the political tension that already grips the nation. Instead of fostering unity, such accusations deepen the partisan divide.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands coming together in a circle of people
SDI Productions/Getty Images

Building a future together based on a common cause

Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.

As the 2024 presidential campaigns speed toward November, we face a transformative moment for our nation. The challenges of recent years have starkly revealed the deep divisions that threaten our societal fabric. Yet, amidst the discord, we are presented with a pivotal choice: Will we yield to the allure of division, or will we summon the courage to transcend our differences and shape a future founded on common cause and mutual respect?

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
silhouettes of people arguing in front of an America flag
Pict Rider/Getty Images

'One side will win': The danger of zero-sum framings

Elwood is the author of “Defusing American Anger” and hosts thepodcast “People Who Read People.”

Recently, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was surreptitiously recorded at a private event saying, about our political divides, that “one side or the other is going to win.” Many people saw this as evidence of his political bias. In The Washington Post, Perry Bacon Jr. wrote that he disagreed with Alito’s politics but that the justice was “right about the divisions in our nation today.” The subtitle of Bacon’s piece was: “America is in the middle of a nonmilitary civil war, and one side will win.”

It’s natural for people in conflict to see it in “us versus them” terms — as two opposing armies facing off against each other on the battlefield. That’s what conflict does to us: It makes us see things through war-colored glasses.

Keep ReadingShow less