Commentators have repeatedly debated the continued viability of diversity jurisdiction. These debates have tended to focus on two points: the existence of local bias (which contributes to arguments favoring the retention of diversity jurisdiction) and the workload of the federal courts (which contributes to arguments favoring the abolition of diversity jurisdiction). What has been missed in this debate is that, far from being an antidote to local bias, diversity jurisdiction today embodies, and indeed promotes, a form of bias by its very existence - a bias against rural areas so pervasive as to require the abolition of diversity jurisdiction.