Giving diversity its due.

Applying to College
1

<p>I had always been a critic of subjective admissions criteria. As a northeastern middle class parent it was hard to accept that my child was being held to higher objective standards than some other applicants. </p>

<p>A speech given by the dean of diversity at a recent freshman orientation helped me see the other side of the argument. It put the history of minority exclusions in context and gave a different perspective on the benefits of a diverse campus. He argued that the opportunity to make America a culture of inclusion may not last forever-that the time to act is now. </p>

<p>Would I have been able to accept these arguments if December's mail had brought a rejection rather than an acceptance? I don't know. I do know that my newly found objectivity enables me to accept that even though the system may seem unfair, there are compelling justifications for it.</p>

2

<p>The Dean of Diversity? really? a paid position?</p>

3

<p>
[quote]
The Dean of Diversity? really? a paid position?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Didn't notice a sarcasm font, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Yes, really, and paid. There are many of them in at the college ranks and secondary schools.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Would I have been able to accept these arguments if December's mail had brought a rejection rather than an acceptance? I don't know. I do know that my newly found objectivity enables me to accept that even though the system may seem unfair, there are compelling justifications for it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As many on CC know this is a touchy subject, but I appreciate your candor. Thanks for sharing.</p>

4

<p>What I dislike is how, at least on these forums (*), diversity has simply become a euphemism for "predetermined percentage of non-Asians and non-whites on campus."</p>

<p>(*)</p>

<p>At my college's orientation, I was impressed with the diversity video we had to watch. I was expecting stuff similar to what I commonly read here, but I heard none of it. In fact, the very first statement was along the lines of the following:</p>

<p>"Some people think diversity is having a few brown faces here, a few white ones there, and so on and so forth. That's not at all what we believe diversity here. Diversity is just respecting the individual."</p>

5

<p>
[quote]
"Some people think diversity is having a few brown faces here, a few white ones there, and so on and so forth. That's not at all what we believe diversity here. Diversity is just respecting the individual."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And you believe what they say?</p>

6

<p>Surely do.</p>

<p>The pro-diversity opinions often expressed here at CC really reflect a minority viewpoint among Americans.</p>

<p>I doubt most of my fellow countrymen believe that policies which do not consider race reduce diversity. It's true if diversity is defined to be some preset percentage, but it's utterly false if diversity is defined to mean unique individuality.</p>

7

<p>One of the definitions of diversity should mean the redress of the not-too- distant legacy legal race-ostracization and segregation at places like the Univeristy of Georgia. Ask Hamilton Holmes or Charlayne Hunter Gault about diversity at U of Georgia (tongue pressed firmly in-cheek).</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
What I dislike is how, at least on these forums (*), diversity has simply become a euphemism for "predetermined percentage of non-Asians and non-whites on campus."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Who is making the predeterminations and where are the predetermined percentages?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I doubt most of my fellow countrymen believe that policies which do not consider race reduce diversity.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Seeing that "your fellow countrymen" may not perceive a direct benefit and from those of your "more specific" demographic fall in line with the mindset of status quo, I will say that this is probably an accurate opinion. However, those who directly or have perceived benefits from racial consideration overwhelmingly believe in these policies wholeheartedly, and would say not to consider race reduces diversity. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The pro-diversity opinions often expressed here at CC really reflect a minority viewpoint among Americans.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Could that be becausemost of those that subscribe to the pro diversity view are minorities?</p>

<p>Diversity matters in this culture not because it can't be argued that it isn't beneficial, or that becuase the majority supports it. It's here largely because those that are empowered (a minority) make it important and have the wisdom and power to enact policies that bring about inclusion, diversity ,multiculturism, whatever you want to call it. The definition and applications have been more broadly defined, but the principles remain loosely intact. Diversity initiatives benefit a few in the short term but potentially yield greater benefits for greater society.</p>

9

<p>I think you guys are missing what the OP noticed. </p>

<p>The view she took was that diversity was important in order to make america a country of universal inclusion. Because groups in America were excluded based on racial lines, we must make sure that all excluded groups are included. Since today the big divide is in class, in which there is an exclusion of certain groups to the upper class as a result of their previous exclusion, and income is related to education, it is important to make sure that all groups are included in higher education in order to make America an inclusive society. Where you can't make the assumption that a high school with greater than 1/3 black students is of poorer quality and more dangerous; Where AA isn't necessary because all groups have the equal opportunity to perform to their potential.</p>

10

<p>Yes, Tyler. thank you. That is exactly what the dean was saying regarding "inclusion".<br>
The 'benefits of diverstity" part of the speech dealt with how individuals can learn most from those who are most different from them. The more diverse the backgrounds of students are, the wider the collective perspective regarding intellectual and social issues. A diverse campus produces graduates with greater abilities to understand the world through the eyes of others. Homogeneity reinforces our prejudices, diversity helps break them down.</p>

11

<p>
[quote]

Because groups in America were excluded based on racial lines, we must make sure that all excluded groups are included.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I disagree. I believe that “we must ensure that all once excluded groups have a chance to compete because groups in America were once excluded based on racial lines.”</p>

<p>You’re arguing for equality of result. That is, there must be so many of group X, Y, and Z present. I’m arguing for equality of opportunity. That is, each group should have a chance to be present. Equality of opportunity is much harder to attain than equality of result. Unlike the latter, it actually requires hard work because you can’t socially engineer equality of opportunity.</p>

12

<p>Who is making the predeterminations and where are the predetermined percentages?</p>

<p>madville,</p>

<p>The predeterminations are made by the admissions officers. The predetermined percentages are whatever they think will “look good.” By comparison, a school like UC Berkeley has no predetermined percentages. Its numbers are representative of natural equilibrium, not forced intervention.</p>

<p>I would argue that most of our fellow countrymen do perceive a direct benefit and are supportive of diversity. I qualify this by noting that we do not believe that diversity is reduced if there are fewer [insert race here] students present. If my campus suddenly had fewer Asians but more students of other races (or even one race) such that the total number of students remained constant, I wouldn’t say that diversity had been reduced.</p>

<p>The status quo is currently “if you don’t genuflect before the gospel of diversity, then you’re a [pick one of the following:]”</p>

<ol>
<li> Racist</li>
<li> White supremacist</li>
<li> Angry Asian Male who comes from an institutionally inhumane culture</li>
</ol>

<p>I know because I have been called all three by different users. (The last one really did happen, by the way.)</p>

<p>Needless to say, I disagree with and oppose this status quo. I add that according to Pew, most (54%) of my demographic support racial preferences. I am in the minority of my demographic, but I am in the overall majority. My demographic is notorious for not voting, however. So, even if most of us favor racial preferences, only the most civic-minded of us will go to the ballots and support or oppose Mr. Connerly’s civil rights initiatives.</p>

<p>I don’t deny that if you benefit from a policy, it’s hard for you to oppose the policy. But, it’s not impossible. Ward Connerly can certainly benefit from these policies, yet he ardently opposes them.</p>

<p>Again, I respect your honesty and straightforwardness.</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
The more diverse the backgrounds of students are, the wider the collective perspective regarding intellectual and social issues. A diverse campus produces graduates with greater abilities to understand the world through the eyes of others. Homogeneity reinforces our prejudices, diversity helps break them down.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree with all of this. I just don’t believe that race-blind policies reduce diversity.</p>

<p>Let’s take an extreme example. Consider a university that takes its students exclusively from one school. The students all have similar socioeconomic statuses. That these students are all unique (by definition) makes their campus diverse. But, it is possible to have a more diverse campus. If the university started accepting students from other schools, diversity would be increased even if these students were all from the same socioeconomic status as the previously admitted students. Of course, if the university started accepting all students regardless of socioeconomic status and other factors irrelevant to participation in university programs, then diversity would be increased tenfold.</p>

<p>I strongly disagree with the ideology that not considering race results in campuses that are devoid of diversity. It may result in campuses that don’t have student body percentages that mirror the U.S. Census, but that doesn’t mean they won’t be diverse.</p>

14

<p>"I’m arguing for equality of opportunity. That is, each group should have a chance to be present. Equality of opportunity is much harder to attain than equality of result. Unlike the latter, it actually requires hard work because you can’t socially engineer equality of opportunity."</p>

<p>-If we can not socially engineer equality of opportunity, then how can it be reached (since racial AA is unjust to you)? Are you arguing that we should say "everyone has a chance to go to school X" and just let the chips fall where they may? Would we not have to get rid of ALL preferences for something like this to work - that is, economic, geographic, gender, athletic, legacy, first generation students, etc? What about the math grind Asian students with poor English skills? Should they not get a boost because of low verbal standardized test scores? Also, who says that this doesn't already happen? What group is NOT allowed to be present at a college? </p>

<p>"Its numbers are representative of natural equilibrium, not forced intervention."</p>

<p>-Well, actually, many Black students stray away from Berkeley because of its small Black student population - the "natural equilibrium" has pretty much forced many in this group to steer clear of the university altogether. Just because something may be “naturally” reached doesn’t mean it’s a desirable outcome, and, for many AA supporters the overwhelmingly White and Asian population at Berkeley doesn’t constitute diversity. Also, I don’t believe it to be all that “natural” as it is illegal for race to be to be a factor in admissions decisions for Californian public schools. It would truly be “natural” if ANYTHING could be considered when choosing a student body. </p>

<p>"If my campus suddenly had fewer Asians but more students of other races (or even one race) such that the total number of students remained constant, I wouldn’t say that diversity had been reduced."</p>

<p>-You're pretty much just defining diversity then saying that this is (the) acceptable form of diversity. To me (and I think many others) having a school full of nothing but White people (or any race for that matter) doesn't really constitute diversity. That’s like saying that the American Presidency has been ‘diverse’ because many of the (only) White men who held the position came from different states – that’s just laughable. </p>

<p>Moreover, either diversity is a reasonable goal for a college to seek or it's not – you certainly can believe it’s not, but you can’t say it is and then also proceed to decide what constitutes diversity – it only makes sense that this is left up to individual colleges and not mandated through (as you put it) “forced intervention”.</p>

15

<p>"I am in the minority of my demographic, but I am in the overall majority."</p>

<p>-So? Majorities are tyrannical and naturally tend to oppress minorities - that's at the heart of the purpose of Affirmative Action - to try to counteract the natural tyranny of the majority! </p>

<p>"I just don’t believe that race-blind policies reduce diversity."</p>

<p>-See, but this isn’t the only definition of “diversity” at most schools. </p>

<p>"and other factors irrelevant to participation in university programs"</p>

<p>-You say this with such conviction, as if it is up to YOU to decide what constitutes being ‘relevant for participation in university programs’. I personally don’t think that SAT scores are 'relevant for participation in university programs', so can we do away with those too?</p>

16

<p>I say people stop making threads like this, because they always end up with the same people saying the same things over and over again.</p>

17

<p>A speech given by the dean of diversity at a recent freshman orientation helped me see the other side of the argument. It put the history of minority exclusions in context and gave a different perspective on the benefits of a diverse campus. He argued that the opportunity to make America a culture of inclusion may not last forever-that the time to act is now</p>

<p>Why is a limited window of opportunity? Supreme Court rulings will not affect private school admissions. What is going to change the status-quo of racial preferences?</p>

18

<p>So? Majorities are tyrannical and naturally tend to oppress minorities - that's at the heart of the purpose of Affirmative Action - to try to counteract the natural tyranny of the majority! </p>

<p>Why don't advocated of AA realize it's Orwellian to deny a qualified individual a slot because they don't fit a loose definition of diversity?</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
Ward Connerly can certainly benefit from these policies, yet he ardently opposes them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If I'm not mistaken, Connerly DID benefit(as did Clarence Thomas) from AA in his businesses, which makes his stand a little hypocritical.</p>

<p>As for "natural equilibrium", there is nothing natural about wanting to grant opportunities of accumulating wealth, power, and prestige to the masses(i.e.selective school admissions) . If anything, it goes against human nature. Diversity initiatives, as imperfect as they may be, attempt to balance out "natural equilibrium."</p>

20

<p>"(as did Clarence Thomas)"</p>

<p>-True, and he even has his own personal AA program - he married a White woman; I'm sure all in the name of diversity.</p>

<p>"Why don't advocated of AA realize it's Orwellian to deny a qualified individual a slot because they don't fit a loose definition of diversity?"</p>

<p>-But they fit your definition of "qualified"? MANY people who are rejected from elite schools are "qualified" to be in those schools - the schools, however, just don't have the space for all those people, so they have to have some way to distinguish among the applicants; and, in attempting to achieve their understanding of diversity, they look at race, gender, geographic location, legacy status, economic status, etc.... </p>

<p>Also, it should be noted (once again) that the schools are the ones that decide what constitutes 'merit' for admission, not random individuals. They also have to make tough decisions - I'd be willing to bet that more often than not the deciding factor between two applicant's isn't race. This is a Jian Li argument - that if you have high test scores and 'believe' that you thus have a right to be admitted to a school, then you should be; well, it just doesn't work like that.</p>