Comment:
Diversity push by U-M, other colleges misguided Comment:
Diversity push by U-M, other colleges misguided
September 5, 2001
BY JAMES A. METCALF
Diversity retains its championship in the campus lightweight division, but only on a technicality: The referee can't count to 10. Drop by a campus near you for this semester's inane commentary on the matter, perhaps some assistant dean to a new batch of freshmen: "I am just so very gratified at the magnificent diversity this group brings to us; to see those wonderful faces in so many beautiful colors, and I thank you all for what you are and what you bring."
Notice that it is the others, of course, who bring diversity, not dean what's-her-name. She's not different; they are. The condescension is obvious, as is the arrogance: Finally, after many a bitter campaign, she has opened doors for the great unwashed, doors that they surely could not have opened for themselves. Is she kidding?
Diversity is a reflection of demographic trends, nothing more. Moreover, ethnicity is about as useful as shoe size in predicting academic potential. This holds true for faculty as well as students. Before you knee-jerk on the inherent virtue of diverse assemblies, ask yourself some questions: Were Aztecs enriched in some transcendental way to be raped, murdered and enslaved by those who brought diversity?
Did Montezuma wax misty over Cortez and his white-skinned conquistadors? Of course not, but within the academy, rhapsodic sniveling continues over diversity's universal virtue. Time and money are wasted in pursuit and celebration of the irrelevant. Why? Maybe it's because the pro-diversity position requires neither thought nor courage. Peter Wood, associate provost at Boston University, puts it this way: "Diversity ...contains a dollop of righteousness tinged with modesty.... To be against it is evidence of small-mindedness."
Its all motherhood and apple pie, as long as the Constitution doesn't muddle things. But it does, particularly the 14th Amendment -- also known as the Equal Protection Amendment -- and there's the rub. U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman referred to the amendment in ruling the race-conscious admissions policy at U-M's law school unconstitutional.
Grutter v. Bollinger is under appeal and perhaps destined for the U.S. Supreme Court. Consider also Title VI, Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."
This act does nothing to protect ethnicity. In fact, it abolishes ethnicity and acknowledges but one undifferentiated class of citizen. That is the great triumph of our system, and it is precisely what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. so courageously sought. The straightforward verbiage of the Civil Rights Act puts a civic half nelson on the race-does-too-matter crowd and forces them to yield the constitutional high ground.
They now claim that ethnic diversity is essential to learning and must be assured in any learning community, for the good of us all. Within the University of Michigan's Web site is a document stating that research conducted at the school proves students learn better when the learning occurs in a setting where they are confronted with others who are unlike themselves. If students learn better when sitting next to a person of different ethnicity, then why preserve the one-dimensional ethnic character of traditionally black schools?
The National Association of Scholars, based in Princeton, N.J., has recently examined the available data and come to a contrary conclusion: "that database clearly demonstates the contrary -- there is no connection between campus racial diversity and the supposed educational benefits."
Some are saying the association's analysis not only debunks the claim of educational benefit, but also exposes an attempt to cook the books in favor of diversity. U-M has barely acknowledged these challenges. Open debate and more widespread analysis of the raw data could bring some sensible resolution.
If dispassionate analysis fails to show any link between student diversity and student learning, then diversity will yield its lightweight championship on both pedagogical and Constitutional grounds, even if the referee never learns to count.
JAMES A. METCALF is a professor in the College of Nursing and Health Science at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. Write to him in care of the Free Press Editorial Page, 600 W. Fort St., Detroit, MI 48226.
News and Announcements | AAD Home Page