Why is diversity good?

College Confidential Community
141

<p>citygirlsmom has it right, both with regard to the demonstration of the need for diversity in higher institutions, evidenced on this thread, but also with regard to our guiding American principles. </p>

<p>The "laws" (forces) of natural selection are often incompatible with the foundational principles (letter & spirit of the law) as set forth in our Constitution, as adjudicated over several centuries of American jurisprudence, and as articulated in legislated statutes. </p>

<p>Keep in mind that an institutional interest in diversity is paralleled by a plentiful array (a diversity) of paths to opportunity in this country often not shared even in some other democratically organized countries. Many posters on CC argue with a fervor which implies very few options for a degree path. In many countries, the "elite" institutions are few, and hopeful students without an admission ticket to those, may be excluded from success, let alone wealth.</p>

<p>In this country, there are opportunities (academic & career) that are unique to a particular 2nd or 3rd tier private, or even a modest, mid-tier public -- such as study abroad or internship programs set aside for that institution alone, as well as little-known two-yr. programs & affiliate programs which are back doors to Ivies. I know of one family who chose Penn State over UPenn because the program in mind was far superior at Penn State. I know people who have turned down UCBerkeley for superior arts programs in some of the State U's, leading to work in that industry. You will find Nobel prize winners teaching at, or who are graduates of, LAC's with unassuming names & obscure locations. Excellence of opportunity is lateral, not narrowly vertical.</p>

<p>So the point is, the amount of energy focused on the supposed controversy of diversity is disproportional, in the extreme, to the actual consequences & outcomes of that, to those who oppose or question its value.</p>

142

<p>poetsheart--</p>

<p>"rich black kids are .. likely to be MORE LIKE their rich white peers than poor blacks dodging gang violence in the ghetto, their experiences are not identical to those of their white peers. Even black kids from "privileged backgrounds" can point out to you instances in which they have been made to feel acutely (and to their disadvantage) aware of their race. They've at least on occasion had experiences in which they have been judged lacking, or undesirable (especially when it comes to dating) simply because of their race. They've had the experience of feeling alienated from others of their racial heritage"</p>

<p>EVERYONE, regardless of race, has been/will be looked down upon in some point in their life for something about themselves, i.e. skin color, weight, attractiveness, intelligence, etc. Even if these "rich black kids" you speak of weren't black, they will still be "judged as lacking" at some point in their lives. So will you and I. The rich black AND white kids who go to school in the suburbs will have about equal knowledge of the the lives of poor innercity black AND white kids. Science has not yet proved that all black people have an innate sense of how all other black people are feeling at any given moment, and I doubt such a thing will ever be proved.</p>

143

<p>If you really did hold King in high respect, fabrizio, you would understand the meaning of his message with respect to "looking forward to the day when" people "would" be judged by the content of their character. Never did he say that that day had come. The point of the civil disobedience of that era, of which he was a part and an inspiration, was to require diversity/integration SO THAT people of color would begin to be recognized as sharing in the same American economic dream as whites. He was clear that while blacks continued to be separated & marginalized & denied access they would continue to be judged only by the color of their skin, not has having equal humanity with whites.</p>

144

<p>"Derrick,</p>

<p>I did not mention affirmative action in the paragraph you cited. I attempted to figure out what your definition of diversity is, which you have not defined in either this thread or the "official" affirmative action thread."</p>

<p>You asked me if I think that there should be more blacks at top universities, which I associate with AA. If you want a definition of diversity, ask me so that we can move o more swiftly to debateable issues.</p>

<p>"di·ver·si·ty /dɪˈvɜrsɪti, daɪ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-vur-si-tee, dahy-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties.
1. the state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness.
2. variety; multiformity.
3. a point of difference."
- <a href="http://www.dictionary.com%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.dictionary.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The diversity and multiformity cited there is obviously not restricted to race, but it is also significantly affected by varying cultural backgrounds. On the topic of the necessity of forced integration, I suggest you read my prior post.</p>

145

<p>epiphany,</p>

<p>I hold Dr. King in high respect because he fought against a perverse form of social engineering that had plagued our nation for over half a century. He continued fighting for what is right, namely, equality for all, despite being told that it would "never happen" or that he was going "too fast." Interestingly, the phrase "never happen" is used by reactionaries who want to continue dividing America on racial lines.</p>

<p>
[quote]

He was clear that while blacks continued to be separated & marginalized & denied access they would continue to be judged only by the color of their skin, not has having equal humanity with whites.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And by advocating diversity based on skin color, how are we moving forward to realizing Dr. King's dream of a race-blind America?</p>

146

<p>Derrick,</p>

<p>In the official affirmative action thread, you wagered that without racial preferences, "diversity levels" would drop at top tier schools.</p>

<p>Since you mentioned diversity, that comment becomes germane for this thread.</p>

<p>What do you mean by "diversity levels?"</p>

147

<p>I'm sorry, fabrizio, it is you who have perverted King's message. You do not understand what his message & mission were. He did not view integration as "social engineering."</p>

<p>He did in fact "advocate diversity based on skin color." (That's what integration is.) He advocated that diversity because that diversity is essential to the principles of equal access for all Americans to the pursuit of happiness & the full advantages of living in a free society -- where all segments of that society are free to participate fully. To King, integration/diversity was an essential step to creating a race-blind America.</p>

148

<p>epiphany,</p>

<p>I don't recall labeling integration a form of social engineering in my post 145. I wrote I hold Dr. King in high respect because he fought against a perverse form of social engineering that **had plagued* our nation for over half a century.*</p>

<p>I talked about a problem that once existed but no longer exists ("had plagued"), namely, institutionalized segregation.</p>

<p>Once again, you have written a post that ostensibly counters mine but in actuality reinforces it. Integration need not be social engineering. In the case of Brown v. Board of Education, Mr. Oliver Brown's daughter was not allowed to attend a nearby school because of her skin color. An artificially induced policy of segregation (i.e. social engineering) prevented her from doing so. Integration would be the natural policy. A student who lives close to a public school should not be denied the freedom to attend there.</p>

<p>To me, integration is not diversity based on skin color. It is granting people the freedom to choose public schools without regard to their skin color.</p>

<p>Diversity of skin color is not an essential component of equal access for all Americans, the pursuit of happiness, and a free society. What is essential, however, is a commitment to treat Americans equally regardless of their melanin levels.</p>

149

<p>I've got news for you Seersucker...school and life are about more than just cold, hard facts. Yes, I go to school to learn facts, but I also go to school to learn how to handle life. And I hate to break it to you, but the world is NOT homogeneous. I plan on going into either banking or politics, either of which will require that I deal with people from around the world...most of whom are NOT just like me. And, even if your entire life is an opportunity to learn from others, if you spend it all in one non-diverse place, you're still not going to learn anything about people who are different. I find it somewhat amusing that America, "birthplace of freedom" remains one of the most regressive first-world countries in this aspect.<br>
Many Europeans, Asians, Africans, etc. complain that the United States is far too ethnocentric, and this is why. They feel that we are content in being ignorant about other cultures -- and I have to agree. When we're on message boards arguing that diversity can be very damaging, we're basically arguing that homogeneity and ignorance are bliss. Diversity can be uncomfortable sometimes, sure, but it's a necessary part of being a citizen of the world.</p>

150

<p>hahaha fabrizio you are entertaining. Honestly i think i'm gonna invite you to a party some time and you can "enlighten" everybody.....</p>

<p>You quote the UC's every twelve seconds, and people refute them every 13 seconds. And you usually just side step the issue. But this time you DID answer, which must have been a big step for you, but with: "I don't buy it!!! you're saying they were entitled!!! you have to earn your spot!!!!" </p>

<p>-that was like, a SUPER BACKTRACK, you backtracked to like the first argument ever made that eventually led to everyone realizing that you were a racist, why would you want to backtrack there?</p>

<p>woot new definition of diversity, URMs should be able to "choose to apply" wherever they want, that's diversity. </p>

<p>no, it's not, at all, give it up.</p>

<p>And i would appreciate it if you didn't disgrace Dr. King by getting your bigot juice all over his ideas.</p>

<p>I think I almost understand why you dont get it (besides racism). You're being so short-sighted about the issue that you don't realize that AA promotes true long term equal opportunities by:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Integrating and diversifying colleges so that all races have an equal shot at higher education and get used to working around each other. </p></li>
<li><p>Because all races are more comfortable around each other they're more likely to work together, help eachother, and live together (research shows that the moment the black:white ratio in a neighbor hood exceeds 1:3, all the white people leave.)</p></li>
<li><p>All of the races begin to have better access to better school for their children, become more educationally driven (the educated tend to place more emphasis and expectation on education) Which further promotes equal opportunity because more races are growing up the same way. </p></li>
<li><p>Gradually AA needs to step in less and less as the races become equally represented until eventually</p></li>
<li><p>Everybody is used to working and cooperating, they are educated to the same level so income median across the board will become constant, and because everybody is comfortably and around more people of different races more often stereotypes and prejudice significantly decrease. </p></li>
<li><p>With the income median stabilized, neighborhoods and schools become integrated and diverse, stereotypes and prejudices are minimal, racial disadvantage is eliminated to the best of our abilities.</p></li>
<li><p>At that point AA is unnecessary and any time URM populations do drop dangerously low, it WOULD be a sign of discrimination because all races would be performing about the same. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>-THAT is what AA does. THAT is why AA works. THAT is what you are fighting against. </p>

<p>AA is not a permanent thing if people realize the benefits and help by taking the time to interact with the diverse environments at universities and on the job.</p>

151

<p>merit is the way to go, people</p>

152

<p>Right, and once you take action against racial disadvantage, merit would be the only thing necessary to consider in college admissions and job offers. </p>

<p>c'mon you don't think that by only considering scores and ECs that racial unbalance would just "even itself out" did you?</p>

<p>Take Women for example. Discrimination and inequality was rampant amongst them but even after overt discrimination was outlawed, they still didn't have equal opportunities. Affrimative action had to be taken to integrate them into workplaces in order to encourage equal opportunities. While they don't have completely equal opportunities in high level job positions (discrimination still exists at high level power positions), they are significantly better off then even a few decades ago. </p>

<p>Women had been living along men since the dawn of time, natural selection didn't just "even things out", it only made them worse, only when AFFIRMATIVE ACTION (literally) was taken did that happen.</p>

<p>The equalizing opportunities of women in America are proof of the positive benefits of AA.</p>

153

<p>Exactly. If we went with merit alone, women wouldn't have a chance. (That's what you mean, right?)</p>

154

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>Upon re-examining your explanation, I see that I have made a mistake.</p>

<p>What you wrote supports my belief.</p>

<p>Students succeed the most when they are well-matched at institutions. If the environment is too easy, then student has no incentive to improve. If the environment is too difficult, then the student may lose confidence. The best situation is an atmosphere where the student learns alongside many other smart and hardworking students but still feels that he can get on top.</p>

<p>My mistake. I did not notice that you again wrote something that actually supports my posts.</p>

<p>So much for wishful thinking. I was really hoping that this time you'd google "straw man" and edify your paltry logical reasoning skills, but it didn't happen. As usual, you constructed another straw man by misrepresenting how I define "integration."</p>

<p>I don't know why I thought a high school sophomore would actually take five seconds of his life to determine what a straw man is. That was too naive. I should've realized he'd never bother when I noticed that he kept calling me a racist despite his only proof being my consistent stance that granting preferential treatment to Blacks does not help them.</p>

<p>Oh well, that's what you get when you discuss affirmative action with people who don't know the difference between "there" and "their" and who refuse to teach themselves what a straw man is.</p>

155

<p>I just finished watching a History Channel program on the KKK- it made me angry, sick, and scared....and seeing that the attitudes of the klan are still in some people's souls, to think that we don't need to keep AA and keep vigilante is naive</p>

<p>And if you don't like the bringing kkk and that ilk into this, too bad....we have a horrid history as a nation and we we have a long way to go to fix our institutions</p>

<p>the purpose of this thread makes me want to vomit, btw....the OP is a veiled racist, and I call him that with little doubt in my mind</p>

156

<p>


</p>

<p>Diversity. Debating why diversity is bad/good makes you want to vomit? Have some tolerance. Look away if disgusts you so much.</p>

<p>I know this isn't an AA thread, but in simplest terms, AA is a catch 22. Having AA leads to nice middle class white kids being racist, and not having AA leads to lost opportunity for nice minorities. I don't see that changing anytime soon, so one needs to decide which result (racist whites or disadvanteged blacks) he wants.</p>

<p>BTW, CC permanently banned Seersucker. Yay for diversity of opinion, right?</p>

157

<p>citygirlsmom,</p>

<p>Why don't you pay a young white male to go into a public area and preach white supremacism? I guarantee you that he'll be verbally abused and perhaps even physically harassed within a matter of minutes. Such ideology is not tolerated in our society now. You write as if the Civil Rights Movement never happened.</p>

<p>Being against "diversity" and supporting the Ku Klux Klan are independent events. I'm against dividing our nation on racial lines (i.e. "diversity"). By contrast, the KKK want to disunite our nation racially.</p>

<p>Have some semblance of logic when you choose to discuss the merits, if there are any, of fake diversity.</p>

<p>Our nation has indeed historically mistreated many groups. We have come a long way, and we can continue moving forward when we abandon the idea that skin color should be scrutinized.</p>

<p>For an advocate of diversity, you don't seem to tolerate a diversity of thought.</p>

158

<p>no, AA doesn't lead to "nice middle class white kids" becoming racist. It just makes people who are already racist angry.</p>

<p>fabrizio, you just said (dont even try to deny it) that AA attempts to divide our nation racially. But AA is integration and promotes racial diversity, so thats just one of many things that don't make any sense. </p>

<p>Just because you may not want to be around "incompetant black people" doesn't make it false diversity. It's diversity of ethnicity just like there is diversity of religion, gender, and economic background (also desirable by colleges). and because you don't have any criticism on those it leads to the realization that you are a racist. </p>

<p>Wouldn't poor people succeed best at a school they are well matched at?
-by your logic, their disadvantage shouldn't even be taken into account.</p>

<p>and tourguide, what i said is that if AA had never been instated, women would have never caught up because the cycle that kept them down for thousands of years would have remained in place. But if AA for women would be stopped in the near future, women would have received enough benefit from AA that they would have equal opportunity and perform as well as men.</p>

<p>back to fabrizio, you told me what straw men were like 3 weeks ago, so you can stop backtracking to it now. (i think you just like saying the word because it makes you feel smart)</p>

<p>Don't feel so threatened just because everybody, including a 10th grader, is schooling you.</p>

159

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>No, I do not deny it because there is no need to deny anything. Just for you, I'll say it once again.</p>

<p>Affirmative action divides our nation racially by making the issue of race more visible than it needs to be.</p>

<p>Affirmative action is not integration. Integration, depending on the location within our nation, was either allowing Black students to attend public schools that previously refused to admit them on the basis of their skin color (South) or allocating students to different schools to achieve racial balance (North). Affirmative action is a system of racial preferences. Not the same. I'm sure you can understand that.</p>

<p>Affirmative action does promote "diversity." I concede this fully.</p>

<p>*
Just because you may not want to be around "incompetant [sic] black people" doesn't make it false diversity.*</p>

<p>It's difficult to be schooled by a high school sophomore who doesn't understand what a straw man is. Where did I ever talk about "incompetant [sic] black people?" If you make these accusations, then you should back them up with post numbers. So far, you've just pulled stuff out of your alimentary canal. (Maybe that's why it's so unbearably noisome.)</p>

<p>I defer to your definition of fake diversity, namely, the "ambassadors" concept. Ironically, you derided that idea but praised a policy which leads to the execution of that very idea.</p>

<p>
[quote]

It's diversity of ethnicity just like there is diversity of religion, gender, and economic background (also desirable by colleges). and because you don't have any criticism on those it leads to the realization that you are a racist.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wha? I don't criticize diversity of religion, gender, and socioeconomics, therefore I am racist? That was devoid of all logic.</p>

<p>Poor people would succeed best at schools where they were well matched at. If we must grant preference, then we should grant preference based on socioeconomics, not race. It's a more inclusive policy because it helps all Americans.</p>

<p>I did tell you what the straw man fallacy is about a week ago. Yet, you still frequently abuse it. Pointing out a sophomore's under-developed logical reasoning does not make me feel smart.</p>

160

<p>"Poor people would succeed best at schools where they were well matched at. If we must grant preference, then we should grant preference based on socioeconomics, not race. It's a more inclusive policy because it helps all Americans."</p>

<p>-That didn't make ANY sense, it was a complete contradiction of your logic. If you use that as your support for socioeconomic AA, then racial AA is just as justifiable.</p>