<p>"Essentially, ALL of the sciences, ALL the mathematics courses, MANY of the language and lit classes, MANY of the politics classes ... I don't understand how diverse backgrounds help at all."</p>
<p>Perhaps you should sit in on a (community) college class, or pay more attention in your own. One, you are assuming scientific disciplines are pure and free from biases and perspectives - and you are fundamentally wrong. Take as an example the lacking knowledge of Labor Theory of value or experience with non-Western systems in economics. Take as an example the erred belief in the egg as "passive" to the "active" sperm, which required quite some decades of women 1) fighting their way into biology and 2) gaining enough collective clout for the observation of eggs being mobile to even be made and empirically proven. Take as an example the positivism that has effected all of the sciences due to assumptions made by the earlier Western canon (google "Cartesian split" and critiques of positivism and the scientific method). Different mindsets than the typical, white privileged one, can make a world of difference in ANY and every discipline. Academic progress DEPENDS on the ability to keep itself as least inbred as it can. Where would math in your country be today without the influence of the Arab culture?</p>
<p>Two, politics are the LEAST effective example you could've brought up. Me having lived in three different countries and three very different political systems has enabled me to help peers, and even professors, get a picture far more nuanced than they may ever have been exposed to otherwise - the same goes for when classmates from widely different cultures and conditions speak up about their experiences in class. It is an amazing resource, and colleges are well aware of how valuable it is in terms of academic progress and, ultimately, profit as the world globalizes. Have these developments gone over your head completely?</p>
<p>"If you're learning russian, it doesn't matter that you came from the ghetto."</p>
<p>Yes, it does. Some argue linguistics to be the most fundamental social science. Language is constantly evolving; oftentimes, more freely within marginalized groups less exposed to totalizing schooling of a standardized, approved, "official" syntax and dictionary. See Fanon on the tension between Creole and French. See the explicitly acknowledged differences between "cockney" and "Queen's English" in Britain, and how understanding the social meaning of this difference has helped Blair win elections by playing on an in-between language. Understanding the social politics implicated in language has definitely helped me grasp the flexibility and quality of language, and so learn 4 different ones easier.</p>
<p>"Do you think that inter-class tensions and the downfall of academia are always relevant to classroom discussions? Even in social science classes, this is not often the case."</p>
<p>Yes, it is. There is a larger point to be made which you seem to have missed, though: the research and schooling done within academia has wide ramifications for all of society. A homogenous academia makes for specific conclusions and, in extension, policies. See how an entirely male-dominated academia helped sanctify the oppression of women and uphold theories and policies we today consider absurd (the "scientific" notion of hysteria, or women becoming hairier as a result of being allowed to read books).</p>
<p>"How? The ghetto kids in my class are basically all at the bottom, grade wise and study habit wise."</p>
<p>You seem to have missed my point. More well-educated, influential URM:s at top universities make for insights and policies that will help ALL minorities materially and socially by making their voice less marginalized and their situation taken seriously.</p>
<p>"I understand there are difficulties, but these kids don't reduce racism. In fact, I think that they perpetuate the sometimes incorrect stereotypes that are already in place, that slum kids are poorly disciplined and not hard working."</p>
<p>Of course, this is a heavily biased view as you assume getting a good grade and succeeding within a system set up by the upper echelons for the upper echelons benefit is the only behavior that qualifies for "hard work". Many of my friends do not consider academia work in the true sense of the word. Many would find you and your lifestyle lazy and sheltered from reality. Many would not prioritize coming to class early, if it meant less hours at their work. Some frankly do not respect academia or see academic achievement as that important. You have been raised to see it as the supreme good - many alienated groups do not, and for sound reason.</p>
<p>"I wonder, if universities accept URMs who will struggle in classes as they have had few opportunities, at least initially, how will this improve race relations and make their 'image' better?"</p>
<p>Again; is it really the URMs that struggle with what you perceive to be proper but difficult material - or the material and school structure itself that is fundamentally flawed, biased and geared towards guaranteeing success for those already sharing its cultural assumptions and make-up?</p>
<p>"What do you have against white people? (BTW i'm not white)."</p>
<p>Sigh. I suspect much of what I just spent time typing will go over your head, if this is the only thing you get out of my posts.</p>
<p>"Just the fact that you believe that there should be equal ratios of races in all positions indicates to me that you are racist."</p>
<p>I believe a small segment of society dominating all of its key positions reproduces racialized educational systems, racialized legal systems (research Davis' and how, correlated to black people getting the vote, the black prison population grew and grew and grew; research the difference in sentence times for "black" vs. "white" recreational drugs), racialized welfare policies... You have an extremely oversimplified idea of what "racism" is and how it operates (and on whom's behalf).</p>
<p>"Can't socially conscious upper class people do well in leadership positions?"</p>
<p>Who said they couldn't? Haven't I urged you several times now to assume just that kind of position, and breed just that kind of consciousness and social responsibility?</p>
<p>"Can't a white person fight for improvement of slums, or is it only slum kids that can become leaders of reform that understand the plight of the colored?"</p>
<p>It is my sincere and firm belief that someone from your background can fight alongside with and help social movements, but will do more harm than good by trying to actively lead and define a cause they are not an organic part of - and indeed, one their class position is fundamentally at odds with. Only the colored have that privilege of definition for the causes of the colored: only women can define what the issues for women are, only men can define what conflicts over paternal rights look like, etc.</p>
<p>"Are people truly so separated from each other that we can't even work towards bettering a situation if we haven't personally gone through it?" </p>
<p>You seem to not even acknowledge there being a situation, or at least, you certainly don't support any constructive measures against it. Sharing a classroom with ghetto kids while simultaneously being indignated over them possibly getting admitted with lower scores than you does not make you a good candidate for that kind of betterment...</p>
<p>"Way to be condescending and closed minded yourself. If I am as "isolated and sheltered" as you say I am, you should not be surprised that I don't understand why diversity is important for colleges, right?"</p>
<p>Surprised, no, but it still boggles the mind you would be so far gone into your own little world.</p>