I have argued here too many times to link that if the Constitution allows (some would say requires) benefits and burdens to be distributed on the basis of race in order to promote “diversity,” it would do the same with regard to religion. A student body or faculty with too many or too few Jews or Muslims or Baptists would be just as un-diverse as one with too few native-born Puerto Ricans. The logic of “diversity,” in short, requires the state and it agencies to engage in extensive racial and religious regulation to correct the imbalances that inevitably result from neutral color-blind and religion-blind policies.
And what of the principle holding that every individual has a right to be treated “without regard” to race, religion, or national origin, or the guarantee of a right to the free exercise of religion even as the government is barred from establishing any religion? Well, those are the hoary and antiquated products of an age that did not sufficiently appreciate “diversity,” our new foundational principle.
Although “diversity” has stormed the heights (or depths) of academia and other elite centers of influence in the press, foundations, etc., its theory is still a bit incoherent. In practice it often means little more than a crude kind of racial balancing. At other times, however, its normal, fuzzy incoherence descends into a virtual schizophrenia, as when, under the banner of promoting “diversity,” university administrators attempt to stamp out all evidence of … diversity.
A depressing portrait of just such a university engaged in just such anti-diversity “diversity” policing is provided today by Prof. Mike Adams of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington.
Read it and weep, or laugh.
I often read this site with an eye toward finding points of rational contention with John’s reporting–a typically fruitless endeavor, to be certain. However, the recurring race/religion theme may offer just such an opportunity.
Regarding “diversity” John asks, quite logically, if race why not religion? Well, to assume the perspective of a diversiphile (shudder), there is a coherent response. Race is an immutable condition of our human experience (Michael Jackson notwithstanding). Conversely, religious faith is a conscious choice, and one subject to the, often whimsical, vagaries of its adherents. I have an acquaintance who, in the dozen years I have known him, has been a practicing Jew, Catholic, and Baptist. That’s a lot of diversity for one man.
So if “diversity” is your elixer, and you are set to drink deeply, then I would think a more logical comparison would be other invariables. We are no more capable of affecting our own skull diameter, blood type, or Zodiac sign, than our skin color. Hmm, I wonder if the University of Michigan is underrepresented in Pisces?
Well, Stuart, this disagreement certainly is rational. (Would that all disagree-ers were so un-disagreeable!) But I’m sticking with my race-religion point. Even if you were right about difference in the legitimacy of discriminating on race or religion, the Constitution doesn’t embody or reflect that distinction. Both kinds of discrimination are, in my opinion, beyond the Constitutional pale. But I also think you’re wrong about the nature of race vs. religion character or characteristics. I know many people for whom their religion is less of a choice than “race” is for many others. Indeed, “race” is such an elastic category that many informed people think it doesn’t really exist. Pushed to its extreme, the logic of your position would be to say that official anti-semitism really isn’t so bad becasue, after all, no one is forced to be a Jew; Jews could always choose to be a Jehova’s Witness.
Well, I just happened to check back on here before retiring, and there is your (as always) cogent reply. That’s full service blogging! Alright I’ll mention a few quibbles, which I know you will take in the friendly spirit of debate they are intended.
First, in my flippancy, I may have left an incorrect impression. In no way (strike me down!) did I mean to imply my own belief in the legitimacy of racial or religious preferences/discrimination/diversity– what have you. As my disclaimer noted, I was simply playing the diversiphiles advocate; a role I will happily abandon henceforth.
Also, if you want to bring the Constitution into this, well Say Goodnight Gracie, because the Constitution was defenistrated around the time Hubert Humphrey promised to eat the bill page by page if affirmative action resulted in racial preferences.
But more interestingly you assert the position that for some people religion is more intractable than race. I would agree to the extent that powerful societal mores exert an influence on many personal choices, some (like religion) much more so than others. Yet still, this is ultimately a choice, pressures or no. One caveat: Some religions in certain parts of the world (which shall remain nameless) handle apostasy with very little equinimity. And if a scimitar happens to be wielded over your barred neck, well forget what I said about choice.
Next, you mention the elasticity of race to some thinkers. Keep in mind though, this is only their own perception of race, and clearly not the view of any society which has ever existed. I should say that I wish it was the view–but it is not, has not, and likely will not be for some time. For all practical purposes, race does exist, and we are born helplessly into it. Heck, if self-perception were the standard, then I should be a good-looking movie star canoodling with a nubile starlet as we speak! Sadly, society didn’t agree with this assessment.
Finally, I think your extrapolation of my religion/choice position is a bit off, at least as I understand it. Just because someone exercises their religious choice (or any other legal choice), I do not think that does (or should) expose them to persecution (or prosecution). No one is forced to vote Democrat (yet) either, though never would I suggest that because it’s just a choice that it’s ok to persecute them.
Alright, I’m tired–off to bed. Thanks for the response John, and keep up the great work.
The Alumni Association at the University of Illinois recently informed its members in its quarterly magazine that it intends to recognize same sex marriages in its public notices section.
I don’t know where I stand on this issue. I could be persuaded that same sex marriages should be recognized by law. The State of Illinois has not done this.
It seems to me that the Alumni Association is trying to present the voters of the State of Illinois with a fait accompli. Administrators and editors seem so convinced of the truth of their views that they are willing to overturn several thousand years of legal precendent and religious custom without consulting the will of the people.
Am I wrong, or does this decision rightly belong with the voters of the State of Illinois or their elected representatives? I find the attempt to impose this policy by administrative fiat arrogant and ill-advised.