Berkeley undergraduate Renita Haney is “young, smart and black,” reports the San Francisco Chronicle.
She’s angry because of the decline in “diversity.”
“Where is the diversity promised to my community by UC Berkeley when we decided to come here?” she demanded at an April 22 rally in front of the chancellor’s office after the latest fall admission figures were released.
Note well how the Chronicle describes this decline:
… the campus that has long prided itself on diversity — only 31 percent of undergraduates were white at the beginning of this school year — has become increasingly less diverse for certain minority groups, particularly for Chaney and her African American peers.
A couple of things virtually leap out of this paragraph. One of them was put so well in an email to me by regular reader Michelle Dulak, who called the article to my attention, that I will let her say it:
How can declining numbers of African-American students make the campus “less diverse” for African-American students who do attend? If anything, aren’t they encountering yet more students unlike themselves? And why is the number of white students an index of “diversity”?
Indeed. But insofar as “diversity” is intended to increase the presence of underrepresented minorities, it should be noted that whites are seriously underrepresented. In 2000, they made up 50% of California’s population.
There is no doubt that the “decline in ‘diversity'” at Berkeley is producing anger among the diverse, but it has always seemed to me that their preferred solution, racial preferences, predictably produces more of what angers them. Consider, for example:
Student Aquelia Lewis told the UC regents in March: “Ever since I stepped onto this campus, I’ve had to fight racism, negativity and questions about why I should be here.”
But why does she believe, I wonder, that lowering admissions requirements for blacks, i.e., re-instituting racial preferences, would reduce rather than increase “questions about why [she] should be here”?
I notice that nowhere in the article does the word “Asian” appear. I guess some forms of diversity don’t count!
I’d ask how many Jews go to Berkeley, but Jews are no longer a minority group. When I found that out I had my first good night’s sleep in two thousand years.
It appears from the black students whose opinions were quoted in the story that they are not really interested in diversity. They are interested only in increasing the number of blacks at the university. They don’t care about Asians. They don’t care about Latinos. They certainly don’t care about any unfairness or underrepresntation of whites (they deserve what they get).
Sometimes you have to read a bit between the lines. I work quite a bit with young black women in the music and arts businesses, so let me suggest that this story doesn’t really get at what is really bothering this young woman.
The achievement gap between black men and black women is catastrophic. This means that a very large number of black women who want to marry their own kind know that they are facing a future in which that is not going to be possible.
Can’t prove it, but I think that you are hearing this from this young woman.
I suggested repeatedly on this site that the huge and increasing gap between the achievement of black women and black men should be a major focus… particularly if you subscribe to the ideals that, I think, motivate this site.
And, for the sake of discussion, I’ll suggest what the first step might be. Perhaps it will strike you as ironic or unrelated. Demand an end to the rationalization and tolerance for black gang violence. Young black men should grow up, as young white men do, in an environment that sends a message of blanket condemnation of gang violence.
Alex,
There are approximately 3 billion Asians and they are considered to be minorities. There are approximately 13 million Jews and they are considered to be part of the majority. Only in America!
“Student Aquelia Lewis told the UC regents in March: ‘Ever since I stepped onto this campus, I’ve had to fight racism, negativity and questions about why I should be here.'”
Ms. Lewis should be made to give specific examples of the racism, negativity, and questions she has had to fight. I’ll bet the exercise would be very educational for her.
The War on Homogeneity Continues
In case you missed it before, I’m now referring to “diversity” as “the War on Homogeneity.” I think it sounds cooler. In any case, it looks like UC Berkeley is on the front lines. Discriminations points us to an article…
Excellent point, Laura. Why should we accept at face value such claims? Because the claimant is black?
“There are approximately 3 billion Asians and they are considered to be minorities. There are approximately 13 million Jews and they are considered to be part of the majority. Only in America!”
Obviously, the people who believe this are graduates of the New New Math schools. You know, the same ones who can’t balance their checkbook without a calculator, and often can’t do it with one either.
You’re wrong. Tell me when Asians get preferential treatment. And yes, there may be 3 billion Asians in the world, be only a very small portion of them live in the US. In contrast, a good portion of the Jews live here.
Since you asked SC, I will enlighten you.
According to the 2000 census 10 million people identify themselves as being Asian. The Jewish population of the US is estimated to be approximately 5.7 million. Thus there are significantly more Asians in the US than Jews.
According to the US Commerce Department, minority-owned businesses are those owned by African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians and Pacific Islanders or American Indians and Alaska Natives. Thus Asians are an
This diverges from the main topic of the thread, but I notice that the Commerce Department also classifies Hasidic Jews (but no other Jewish sects) as minorities for the purposes of categorizing minority-owned businesses. I’m curious if anyone knows the history of how this specific religious group came to be included on the list.
Good comment, Stephen. Let me say that as a single black woman speaking only for myself, you write truth, that quaint concept we shun in post-modern America.
Richard, whatever the official policy is, it isn’t working. Asians are punished twice- once in getting into college, and then in the job market. In all the best universities, Asians are held to a higher standard than whites in admissions. Jews are not because universities don’t ask for religion. Even after that penalty, Asians have the highest median income of any racial group (Jews would be higher if they were counted as one). But, adjusted for education level, Asian income is lower than whites’.
You all seem to be complaining that your group of whites (including Jews)isn’t getting their “fair share” based on merit. But of course nobody cares about “fair share”- they just want more, more, more for their own. You guys are far from the only ones.
You all seem to be complaining that your group of whites (including Jews)isn’t getting their “fair share” based on merit.
You are joking, right? The last thing we are concerned about is getting our “fair share”. One does not get a fair share based on merit. One gets rewarded or not based on their individual effort. It other words, we do not want anyone to be discriminated against, including Asians.
Richard, whatever the official policy is, it isn’t working..
Well maybe not for you, but I personally know many Asians who have taken advantage of the law to form companies. In fact, just recently one of my former students wanted to hire me to work for his company. He was able to get government contracts due to the fact that he was a “minority”. He came to this country from, of all places, Nepal. Who knew that Nepalese were a discriminated against minority that need to given government contracts to make up for past discrimination? As I said before, only in America!