“Diversity” And Representation

Diligent reader Fred Ray has sent a couple of links (Link One and Link Two) revealing that UCLA students, and regents, remain in a dither over what they regard as the woeful lack “diversity” there.

Query I: why don’t some of the students who feel their education is being undermined by the absence of sufficient “diversity” transfer to a California State University campus, where they would no doubt find more?

Query II: since the assumption on which “diversity” rests requires a belief that all minorities are fungibile, does a reduction in the proportion of minorities really reduce the “diversity” to which the minorities themselves are exposed? If not, why are minority students often in the forefront of those demanding more “diversity”? For example, from Link Two:

Representatives from different student minority groups such as the African Student Union, the American Indian Students Association and the Asian Pacific Coalition participated and spoke during the rally.

They repeatedly emphasized that the University of California population does not reflect the diverse population of California.

….

Diversity is an important issue because the student population should reflect the population of the school’s region, especially at a public school, said fourth-year music education student Jeffery Wallace, of Alpha Phi Alpha and ASU.

“The demographics at UCLA do not parallel the demographics of California and a public institution should be serving its community,” Wallace said.

No institution, of course, and especially no selective institution, can “parallel the demographics” of its “community” or even its “region” unless a) its applicants are drawn proportionately from all the constituent groups of the “community” or “region” and b) all are equally qualified and available. And even if these impossible criteria were met, there would still be deep pockets of demographic disparities. For example, even if a quota were instituted to ensure that Asian-American admits did not exceed their proportion of the population, chances are that a disproportionate number of them would gravitate toward majors in science of math, leaving them “underrepresented” in the humanities classes where, presumably, they could make the most meaningful contributions to “diversity.”

But maybe there is a way — for that matter, a tried and true way — that institutions like UCLA and Berkeley can be made to “parallel the demographics of California.” Since we are now, clearly, a nation of “groups” and not individuals, and since the practice of racial preferences is based on the idea of group rights, why shouldn’t constitutent assemblies of the various groups that make up California elect the students who will attend the state universities, in proportion, of course, to their numbers? Election would make the elected students much more legitimate representatives of their groups than the current system, where impersonal, bureaucratic admissions offices (themselves, of course, not demographically representative) deign to select students based on criteria that have nothing to do whatsoever with group representativeness.

This notion was suggested, unintentionally, by “Bill,” who recently posted this comment to another post as part of an ongoing debate over group rights:

If there are such things as “group rights,” I am wondering how they are to be exercised by the “group.”

“African-Americans” aren’t admitted to the UM College of Law. Individual African-Americans are admitted. “African-Americans” don’t even decide who will represent them in the exercise of these group rights, that is, who will receive, individually, the largess of the group right.

Obviously, we can’t have the members elect their representatives. In addition to being logistically impossible, it would be philosophically inconsistent….

“Bill,” of course, is obviously hung up on the increasingly antiquated notion of individual rights. (Indeed, he probably even still believes it is wrong to burden or benefit people because of their race!) He doesn’t seem to see that it’s not only inconsistent but downright undemocratic for a college or law school to admit some minority applicants because of the “diversity” they will provide but to do nothing, nothing!, to ensure that those “diversity” admits are in fact representative of their groups, groups whose “right” to representation forms the very basis of their admission.

To say that it is “logistically impossible” to elect students is simply one more admission that we haven’t tried, that we haven’t been creative enough to come up with procedures to so so. Given the tidal waves of enthusiasm for “diversity” and “group rights” that have been washing over campuses for decades, I’m sure there is not only a will but a way to do this. Just think: all that energy that for years has been devoted to disguising the degree of preference, to coming up with elaborate spread sheets with cells of “maybes” and “possibles” and “yes indeeds” can be transferred, with many hours and even days and weeks saved, to the relatively simple matter of creating group polls to elect students.

Such an approach would no doubt have the added benefit of ensuring many fewer undemocratic anamolies, such as an errant admissions officer admitting some future Clarence Thomas as though he were black or a Miguel Estrada (a “Hispanic Clarence Thomas”) as though he were Hispanic.