In Phi Beta Cons, a National Review blog, Carol Iannone describes as “nonsense” some comments on “diversity” by Susan Palmer, dean of admissions at the University of Virginia law school.
Dean Palmer had stated, among other things:
“The law school does not have lectures but, rather, lively discussion,” said Palmer. The opinions a student brings to the classroom are not limited to preparation for class but also include the student’s background, which may include a person’s gender, sexual preference or religion, Palmer said.
“Every law school in the county wants to have the liveliest possible mix — is race a part of it? Yes, it is,” Palmer said.
It is well known that, in the interest of “diversity,” the University of Virginia gives preferences to students from selected minority groups. Is Dean Palmer saying here that the University, a state school, also gives preferences to students based on their religion or sexual preference?
If not, is the University practicing what she preaches about “diversity”? But if so, does that mean the UVa constitutional law professors see no First Amendment problems in a state institutions preferring some religions over others?
Indeed, I suspect the dean has no idea how many Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Mormons, Missouri Synod Lutherans, Quakers, born again Baptists, fundamentalist Christians, Zoroastrians, wiccans, etc., are in her student body, and hence she has no idea whether any of them are “underrepresented.” It would be interesting to hear her explain why admitting yet another black or Hispanic to the group already admitted provides more “diversity” than one or two from any of the above groups who are “underrepresented.”
Interesting. And if blacks, say, have certain outlooks and opinions by the fact that they are black, why wouldn’t they have different approaches to driving by the virtue of that fact?
So isn’t racial profiling, assuming that it does exist, just a different form of diversity?