THERE will be much hand-wringing in the more liberal quarters of the University this week as the Supreme Court finally hears arguments about one of the most highly-publicized legal issues facing America today: affirmative action. Many are anxious because the decidedly conservative makeup of the Court makes it especially likely that the decision to be handed back later this year will severely restrict the scope of future affirmative action programs in education -- if not ban the practice outright. Such a decision will be a triumph of sound jurisprudence and racially-neutral legal decision making, but more broadly it will be a victory for minorities and the poor everywhere in our country.
Whether or not you think that affirmative action is a desirable policy is (at least, ostensibly) irrelevant to whether it is constitutional. Constitutionally speaking, promoting diversity is the most central compelling interest the government may have in supporting affirmative action. While "diversity" has gotten much attention at the University lately, it's important for people to recognize what it means and the limits to which it should be promulgated. "Diversity" has become a buzzword in our national discourse whose definition is limited by its own over-inclusiveness. No one's really sure -- or is willing to say -- what exactly it means. Surely, it doesn't simply refer to admitting more dark-skinned students outright. What, then? Presumably, efforts to increase diversity aim to smoke out certain differences in worldviews, attitudes, educational backgrounds and intellectual development that are prevalent among minority populations. Once infused into the educational community, such a diversity of backgrounds is reputed to improve education through greater perspective.
But this notion is inherently problematic. First, it's stereotypical -- all people who share a certain racial characteristic do not all think the same way. Making such assumptions of individuals who happen to be of a certain race is precisely what fueled -- and to a lesser extent, perpetuates -- racism in society. We ought not patronize and generalize applicants by assuming their "black thinking" or "Hispanic thinking" is specifically desirable to counteract all the "white thinking" on college campuses.
Second, a diversity of intellects can be achieved by many more less objectionable ways than through racial discrimination. Choosing interesting minds to bring to Grounds (or a "campus," should one be so unlucky) would require a more thorough application process and better means of getting inside an applicant's head than the two or three bland admissions essays currently required. But the better view the admissions officer would have of the applicant and the lack of any objectionable racial bias would surely be worth the extra time.
That brings up the third complication with the "diversity" issue: it's just too vague to justify a vast system of legal discrimination against whites whose rationalization requires astounding constitutional acrobatics. We'll never know "how much" diversity is too little, or too much, or just enough
Read More
PARTING SHOT: Without sorrow
By Jackie Bond | 2 hours agoAs difficult as college was, I did not drop out, I did not give up on myself or my friends in times of need and I shared my voice at every opportunity. And that is something worth celebrating.
PARTING SHOT: The myth of the “two Universities”
By Dan Freed | 6 hours agoThere’s a reason basketball has a color commentator in addition to play-by-play commentary — and it is the same reason why Opinion sections exist.
PARTING SHOT: Work that never felt like work
By Leon Arceo | YesterdayWhenever I list the titles I held during my time at the paper, I’m often met with surprise — or even sympathy — for taking on so much. But the truth is, it never felt like a burden.
