Lee Bollinger, of Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, former dean of the Michigan law school, current president of Columbia, defends diversity in the current Newsweek.
He thinks diversity is “as essential as the study of the Middle Ages, of international politics and of Shakespeare” because students “must be immersed in a campus culture that allows them to study with, argue with and become friends with students who may be different from them.”
But the only difference diversity cares about is skin color, and only of a few carefully selected varieties. The “diversity” that diversity defenders defend is so clearly not diversity as usually understood — of ideas, values, culture, experience — that the more arguments for it one reads, the stronger becomes the suspicion that these arguments are diversions, smokescreens, camouflage for their real purpose, simply admitting a predetermined number of minorities.
Bollinger also writes:
Opponents of Michigan’s undergraduate system complain that an applicant is assigned more points for being black, Hispanic or Native American than for having a perfect SAT score. This is true, but it trivializes the real issue: whether, in principle, race and ethnicity are appropriate considerations.
What “it”? Does Bollinger really think that all critics care about is the 20 points? Does he really not see and hear that critics proclaim the principle that race and ethnicity are not appropriate bases for the distribution of burdens and benefits?
IF classroom diversity is so important, why is no one forcing Howard to take lots more white kids?
well, for starters, i’m sure that it _is_ easier to get into howard if you are white than if you are black, based simply on the fact that most schools have lower standards for scarce applicants (the classic example is the advantage gained by say a rural high plains student applying to a northeastern school). having recently applied to colleges myself, i can certainly testify that guidance counselors and the like operate under this assumption (which would seem to be prima facie evidence in favor of its correctness, no?).
if the whole point is trying to increase the enrollment of a substantial minority on campus, and the chosen and widely-used mechanism is altering admissions standards, (and bar evidence to the contrary, i would be surprised if howard does not, in fact, do so), then i would think howard and schools like it do exactly what you are urging them to do.
as to why people don’t publicly urge them to do even more, i’m not totally sure…it’s not an issue i’ve fully thought through. a possible explanation, however. one can make a case that an important component of diversity is being exposed to students of different backgrounds (be those national, regional socioeconomic, ethnic, racial, etc). thus, black students at howard are suffering because they are not exposed to white students. however, black students, if they so choose, may gain exposure to white students very easily at other universities. turn that around. bar affirmative action, the number of blacks in many universities is going to drop substantially. as a result, white students are going to suffer from a lack of exposure to black students, _and_ it is going to become considerably more difficult for them to gain that exposure elsewhere. thus, the second problem is more serious, and requires more attention, than the first. i don’t know quite how good of an argument that is, but it seems like a possible explanation.
mark
it should also be mentioned that a substantial objection (certainly one that i’ve heard made a great many times) to the michigan policy is the number of points it awards (ie, awarding twenty is way too many, especially in light of the points awarded for essays, etc). bollinger’s point is that this is irrelevant, that the moral question remains the same whether or not michigan awards one point or twenty. while you may make your arguments based on the principle of the thing while ignoring the actual number of points involved, it is by no means unfair, imnsho, for bollinger to point out that many opponents of the michigan policy do not observe this distinction.
I think part of the problem many critics have with the 20 bonus points is that they are defended as consistent with Powell’s controlling opinion in Bakke, even though Powell clearly had in mind only a very small “plus” that could be applied to tip the scales between essentially equal applicants. Thus, mentioning the huge heft of the bonus does not really trivialize the principle that no bonus should be applied because of race.
Does Howard do recruiting drives in Minnesota or North Dakota or Wyoming? Don’t make me laugh. Are they handing out scholarship moeny to kids or Noewegian desecent? SOrry, but I don’t believe that diversity of skin tone or social class contributes anything to a class discussion of Burnt Njal or 18th Century Art.