University of California regent Ward Connerly has proposed adding a “multiracial” box to university application forms. UC students seem to support such a measure:
UC officials surveyed the approximately 154,000 undergraduates enrolled last spring about the issue. About 42,000, or 27 percent, of students responded, with just under 11,000 identifying themselves as multiracial or multiethnic. Of those students, 44 percent said they wanted to check more than one box, 21 percent wanted to check a multiracial or multiethnic box instead of individual categories and 35 percent had no preference.
Unsurprisingly, most of those who opposed Connerly’s last ballot initiative — barring the state from collecting racial data — oppose his proposal to collect more accurate data. UC president Robert Dynes sent a letter to the Regents opposing the proposal,
saying the change would undermine trend data on student demographics, would go against federal guidelines, jeopardizing funding, and would put UC out of step with other universities.
Blah blah blah. The real logic of the opponents was revealed, however, probably in an unguarded moment of unintentional candor, by a UC undergraduate, Ai-ling Malone:
Malone, who is of Asian and white descent, said multiracial people are not homogenous and “to lump us all in a box would really hurt the true representation of who’s on campus.”
Ah, now I’ve got it. “Multiracial” people are not “homogeneous,” but members of each of the five approved racial groups the university now uses — American Indian, Asian, black, Hispanic or white — are all homogeneous. So much so that adding a dollop to the mix from any of these groups automatically and by definition increases overall “diversity.”
One of the curious inversions of contemporary liberalism is that it has embraced this racialism rather than rejecting it for the perversion it is.
The US Census now uses a “check all that apply” standard so while it is more complicated than a one-drop/one-box rule, it certainly doesn’t clash with federal standards.