Some Further Questions about Diversity
George C. Leef, The John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy

Will a diverse college campus -- where "diverse" means that there is at least a "critical mass" of students and faculty members who are regarded as being members of certain "underrepresented" groups -- lead to better results than if the school did not make any effort at being "diverse?" In the Forum posting that precedes this one, I looked at the argument that diversity is beneficial because it causes people to relate more comfortably with one another. I didn't find that argument very persuasive. What I want to do here is to examine some other arguments that have been advanced as justifying the hiring and admission preferences that are integral to the diversity movement.

Globalization
The first argument is that diversity helps prepare American students for the diverse and increasingly globalized world they will live and work in. A "diverse" campus is therefore good preparation for the future. A college that failed to give its students that preparation would be remiss, wouldn't it?

We need to begin with the premises of the argument. We often hear it said that the world is becoming more diverse and globalized, but is it the case that most or even a significant fraction of American workers will have contact with people from other nations in their jobs? The vast majority of American workers don't currently have anything to do with international commerce and it's hard to see how that's going to change much. True, the volume of international trade will probably increase, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a substantial percentage of the labor force will be involved in it.

Furthermore, why is a more "diverse" college experience any preparation for international business dealings? Being in classes with American "minority" students, most of whom are culturally no different than "majority" students hardly teaches one anything about foreign peoples, languages, and cultures.

Finally, this argument evaporates when you consider the great success in international commerce that the Japanese have enjoyed -- just to name the most conspicuous example of a people who don't concern themselves with "diversity." What the Japanese (and other successful international traders throughout history) understand is that you don't need a "diverse" educational experience to be able to interact with foreigners.

Role models
Another argument raised in favor of campus diversity is that "minority" students need role models from their own groups in order to have the best chance at success. For example, on this theory, Latino students need to have at least some Latino professors in order to master their studies.

That argument has a ring of plausibility, but is it generally true? It is easy to find instances of "minority" students who have earned advanced degrees in the most demanding of subjects without ever having had a course taught by "one of their own." Also, there is something rather condescending toward minority students in saying that many of them, having reached college age, are unable to just focus their attention on the subject matter being presented to them and ignore the physical characteristics of the person presenting it.

Note also a troubling implication of this argument. If we took it seriously, we would need to have segregated classes, with students assigned to (or at least having the option of choosing) classes taught by instructors from "their own" group. That would be very costly and would also require the hiring of many "role model" professors who would have less experience in teaching and perhaps less knowledge of the subject than the "majority" professors. Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a "role model" gain, does that gain still hold if the instructor is less capable?

Different points of view
Yet a third argument for diversity is that classrooms are improved by the addition of "minority points of view." That argument has been employed most often with regard to law school, where class discussions on certain topics are said to be enriched by the inclusion of "minority" opinions. The same contention might apply to some undergraduate courses.

One obvious question -- how often is it that there is any distinctively "minority" point of view to be expressed? In law school, courses where that is even conceivable are few in number. Is there any "minority" viewpoint regarding the subject matter of trusts and estates, civil procedure, or antitrust? Hardly. And even in those classes where there might be one or more "minority" views, why are they relevant in learning the law? Law students go to school to learn from experts what they need to know in legal practice, not to listen to the opinions of other students as to whether the law is ideal. To whatever extent the professor desires to catalyze debate in class, he can voice critical observations about the law better than the students probably can.

University of Michigan law professor Terrance Sandalow has written, "My own experience . . . is that racial diversity is not responsible for generating ideas unfamiliar to some members of the class. Even though the subjects I teach deal extensively with racial issues, I cannot recall an instance in which, for example, ideas were expressed by a black student that have not also been expressed by white students."

John McWhorter, in his iconoclastic book Winning the Race is even more dismissive of the idea: "What is the 'black view' on systolic pressure? La Chanson de Roland? Contract law? Musical counterpoint? And what, pray tell, are the distinct Latino views on these subjects?" He regards it as condescending for whites to think that there is one black view on anything and that they just have to hear it.

Justification or Rationalization?
Not one of the arguments in favor of "diversity" as it's practiced is very convincing. In fact, an array of writers believe that the arguments offered on behalf of the diversity project are just thin rationalizations for something higher education leaders wanted to do anyway -- rather like the kid whose mother catches him sneaking cookies and says, "But Mom, I recently read that chocolate has important antioxidants. Don't you want me to stay healthy?"

Peter Wood suggests that in his book Diversity: The Invention of a Concept where he writes, "As administrators got their minds around the concept and as it was taken up by politically committed faculty members, diversity became more than a legalistic dodge. It dawned on some that diversity might be an immensely useful idea: a positive-sounding and potentially popular rubric for advancing a political agenda that had so far proven highly unpopular with the American people as a whole." The diversity project had an appeal to many people in higher ed authority before Justice Powell, in his Bakke opinion suggested a possible constitutional justification for it -- the "educational benefits" rationalization. It was not the case that those people said, "Oh look, there is evidence that education would be better with more diversity, let's do it." Rather, I think it's true that people who, for ideological or personal reasons favored the diversity project said, "This is what we want; what rationalization will sound best?"

Is there any way in which American higher education is better now than it was before the advent of "diversity"? That's the ultimate question.

NAS9:21 AM

Some Questions about "Diversity"
George C. Leef, The John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy

The Chronicle of Higher Education recently devoted an entire 40 page section to diversity, packed with articles on diversity and advertisements by schools large and small touting their commitment to diversity. A reader with no familiarity with American higher education would probably conclude that having more "diversity"is an unquestioned good -- that one would no more ask if it's beneficial to have more diversity than one would ask it's beneficial to have better health. Not once in the entire section (and very rarely in anything written about higher education) is there a hint of skepticism about the diversity movement or questioning of the term's meaning.

There is something odd about the insistent adulation of diversity. Individuals don't usually tell themselves, "I'd be better off with more diversity in my life. I'm going to listen to all the different kinds of music available, not just the stuff I've been enjoying. I'm also going to have more diversity in my diet, eating many kinds of food I don't normally eat."Of course, we sometimes choose to try something new -- a country-western fan could tune into a Met broadcast because a friend said that she might enjoy the music in The Marriage of Figaro -- but that isn't the same as a determination that a more diverse array of music would necessarily be better.

Similarly, most institutions don't treat diversity as a goal to be pursued for its own sake. If a director of Microsoft said to his colleagues, "The company just isn't diverse enough. We don't make bedspreads, golf equipment, or spark plugs," the rest of the board would think he'd been lacing his coffee with brandy.

So what is it about higher education that makes diversity an object to be pursued so zealously? I read through that section in The Chronicle looking for answers.

Philosophers distinguish between things that are intrinsically good (that is, good in and of themselves) and things that are instrumentally good (that is, good because they lead to favorable results). Both positions seem to be represented in The Chronicle's diversity section. Let's take a look at some arguments.

One writer contends that achieving academic diversity is a matter of "equity." If that argument is sound, it would uphold the idea that diversity is intrinsically good, since the promotion of equity (or, to use a clearer term, "justice") has long been regarded as an ethical imperative. But the argument seems to have a fatal weakness: Everyone is diverse (or simply, different) along countless dimensions, but the diversity movement focuses on just a few of the ways in which people are different to the exclusion of all others.

Two people who happen to share the same national ancestry (Italian, let's say) may be different in a host of important respects -- political philosophy, religious beliefs, musical tastes, views on morality, interest in sports, willingness to volunteer to assist others, and so on. In fact, they might have almost nothing in common except the happenstance that both had one or more Italian ancestors. And even that admits of likely "diversity," since Italy is far from being a homogeneous country.

So if diversity is a requirement of justice or equity, to whom must we be just? The diversity movement singles out only a few of the ways in which people are different and assigns a place of privilege to "membership" in a few groups said to be historically disadvantaged. That leads to two further difficulties. For one thing, if you go back far enough, most people can trace ancestry to someone who was part of an oppressed group. An "Italian" might be descended from Etruscans who were conquered and pillaged by Romans. For another, what is so important about the history of one's lineage? Justice is a matter of treating individuals fairly and it is hard to see why things that happened long ago to other, possibly related, people should have any bearing on the way individuals living today should be treated.

A person designated as "African-American" (and therefore a member of a class receiving favorable consideration under the "diversity" movement) may have had no ancestor ever held in slavery, whereas a person designated as "white" (and therefore not receiving favorable consideration) may have living ancestors who suffered terribly at the hands of Nazis or communists. He might even have suffered himself. If the intent of the diversity movement is somehow to try to make up for historical injustices, aren't the groupings very poorly designed? But even if we devised better groupings, why should any of that matter in the decisions colleges and universities have to make regarding students and employees? Shouldn't people be judged by more educationally relevant criteria?

A reply that might be made is that "diversity" is concerned about equity for groups, not individuals. The trouble there is that we can only deal with individuals. A decision to hire one applicant over another or admit one student over another does not affect the group to which diversity analysis has assigned them because groups are just abstractions. The impact is always on individuals.

Maybe there is a more convincing "intrinsic"argument than this one. Until it is presented, though, I think we have to look doubtfully at the argument that diversity is necessary for justice.

Let's look next at one of the common arguments that diversity is instrumentally good.

It's said that diversity in the classroom helps students learn to accept and interact positively with others who are different. College, it is argued, should be about more than just learning various subjects; it's also about learning about other people. Attending a "diverse" campus is thus doubly educational. How about that?

Several responses come to mind. First, college isn't the only place where people encounter others and learn how to cooperate despite difference. Most of us do that from childhood on. Even if they don't come personally in close contact with people who are racially or ethnically different, they are perfectly aware of the existence of such people and, thanks to modern communications, know that successful individuals can be found in every group. The prejudices of ethnic insularity are overwhelmingly a thing of the past. Just as it's often said that generals are preoccupied with the last war, so it seems that higher education leaders are preoccupied with solving a sociological problem of the past.

Also, the point made above about the problem of specifying just what kinds of diversity matter is again relevant. If it's really important to mix together "diverse" people, why concentrate only on race and ethnicity? There is much more strife along other fault lines in society. If there is anything to this blending theory, wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate on, say, ensuring diversity of thought on religion and secularism?

Moreover, do we know that "diversity" actually brings about attitudinal changes that wouldn't occur anyway in college-age people? Does the presence of students and professors who are "diverse" really change people's opinions in any significant and beneficial way? And if so, wouldn't it be more helpful to concentrate on other ways in which people are different besides ancestry? This instrumental argument doesn't seem very convincing.

There are other instrumental arguments raised in support of "diversity," but an examination of them will have to wait for another essay.

NAS9:36 PM