This does a great job of illustrating the advantage of "diversity", which ISN'T having people approach the problem from different perspectives.
Hand in hand with "diversity" is "inclusiveness", and "inclusiveness" is the real point.
If you have a town full of people that rely on "the town farmer" to grow the food, and they have this naive idea that food is something that grows on a supermarket shelf, they're going to govern themselves like idiots any time they're given a voice in how to handle the food supply.
This means that they'd be better off not to participate in a democracy and just make this guy their master because food is so important that they'll kill themselves if they make a mistake, which their ignorance practically guarantees.
So, for the sake of their own security, they need to be included.
They're ignorant as little babies. Their ideas are founded on nothing at all. There's a system that is providing for their food supply, and their purpose there is to learn it, not assert control over it.
They are there to become grounded in reality, and to surrender to reality, and to be absorbed into what is there.
Coming into a situation with the attitude that you are there to bring something to the table and that your perspective deserves to be respected is demanding that reality be ignored in favor of making you feel comfortable and valued.
So, instead of learning to not rely on the farmer, you basically fire him in a fit of ego and then starve to death when you realize you don't know what the hell you're doing.
A lot of people miss the point on this, and they're running around with this idealistic position that they are doing a good thing by "transforming" cultures to make them more "diverse", and shoving arrogant ignoramuses into positions of authority and demanding that the people whose culture was formed around a set of problems abandon all of their hard won lessons and start playing politics as the systems that are their duty go to shit.