Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Discriminations

Legal Commentary

: Discriminations

?Diversity For Thee But Not For Me?

Fred Schwarz has a wonderful column on ?diversity,? or the lack thereof. He notes, among other nice tidbits, that both Hillary and Obama went to un-diverse colleges, and Hillary, pointing to herself, lauds the benefits of her choice. And Obama?

Obama is unlikely to praise Columbia?s all-male policy, which few at the time saw as anything but an anachronism, but he has been a strong supporter of HBCUs (historically black colleges and universities), recently introducing legislation to increase their federal funding....

?If diversity were truly ?vital for the benefit of all students in higher education,?? Schwarz notes, ?there would be no HBCUS,? since they ?siphon off part of the already small pool of black college students....?

So, Schwarz, asks, ?who needs diversity??

Or, more precisely, why can?t college applicants choose how much diversity they want, instead of having it regulated by the government? It?s striking that American colleges, famously prickly about their independence and almost uniformly left-wing, submit tamely, even eagerly, to government regulation in this area. Indeed, college professors and administrators are among the greatest advocates of stronger mandates for ?affirmative action.?

Clinton reveals part of the answer when she promises to ?bring more women and minorities into the math, science, and engineering professions? and recalls how ?for millions of Americans, affirmative action has knocked down the barriers of the past that prevented them from attending college.? Whether they were kept from ?attending college? or merely the college of their choice, and whether it was affirmative action or simple desegregation that dismantled the barriers, are open to question. So is the notion that our lives will be improved if a sewage-treatment plant is designed by a woman instead of a man, or a Basque instead of an Anglo-Saxon. But passages like these make clear that the supposed personal growth that comes from living among people with assorted skin colors is a minor consideration. At bottom, affirmative action is about generating admissions slots and professional opportunities for members of certain groups -- plus, of course, jobs for diversicrats to administer the programs. The more affirmative action, the more there will be of all these things, and that?s why no one must be allowed to opt out.

There are other reasons why collegiate types want diversity to be mandatory. If College A admits based on diversity while College B goes by merit, then B will soon surpass A. Most of all, though, requiring affirmative action simultaneously reinforces the idea that racism and sexism are omnipresent and inescapable, like original sin, and provides an easy path to salvation. Professors and administrators can say: ?Even we, the enlightened few, unconsciously practice subtle but severe discrimination, which can only be remedied with the help of highly paid bureaucrats.? And the cure? Do exactly what they wanted to do anyway. It?s like giving up broccoli for Lent.

Read the whole thing.

Full post as published by Discriminations on January 27, 2008 (boomark / email).