Jewish World Review Jan. 13, 2003 / 10 Shevat, 5763
The fig leaf of 'diversity'
As a justification for racial preferences, "diversity" is one of the
great fig leaves of modern American academia. It first appeared in 1978
-- well after affirmative action had degenerated into the practice of
admitting students on the basis of color. That was the year of the
Supreme Court's Bakke decision, in which Justice Lewis Powell cast the
decisive fifth vote to strike down the University of California's racial
quotas -- but then turned around and said that a university could take
race into account in order to ensure a "diverse student body." Racial
preferences that were clearly unconstitutional at the front door, in
other words, might be able to sneak in by going around to the back.
Powell thought he was authorizing the use of race only as one of
numerous factors that an admissions committee might take into account.
Inevitably, though, it became in many cases the deciding factor. Today,
universities routinely treat applicants differently on the basis of skin
color, admitting black (and often Hispanic) students with significantly
lower test scores and grade point averages than their white and Asian
counterparts. And the excuse for all this systematic racial
discrimination is "diversity."
Now the issue is back before the Supreme Court, which will soon hear
arguments in a pair of cases challenging the University of Michigan's
use of racial preferences. The justices will be asked to decide, in
effect, whether Powell was right: Is the goal of diversity enough of a
"compelling interest" to override the Equal Protection Clause of the
Certainly most Americans don't think so. In a nationwide poll
reported last year in The Washington Post, respondents overwhelmingly
opposed racial preferences. That view cut across all groups: 86 percent
of blacks, 94 percent of whites, 88 percent of Hispanics, and 84 percent
of Asians agreed that college admissions (as well as hiring and
contracting) "should be based strictly on merit and qualifications other
than race or ethnicity."
Americans have internalized Martin Luther King's foremost teaching
-- that human beings should be judged by the content of their character,
not the color of their skin. They understand that real diversity
encompasses "points of view, backgrounds, and experiences," as Powell
put it in Bakke. They know that race is no proxy for those qualities,
and that a state university that claims otherwise engages in just the
kind of racial stereotyping that the 14th Amendment condemns.
And yet the defenders of racial preferences insist that mere racial
diversity enhances college life. It has "positive effects on civic and
social attitudes, tolerance, even analytic skills," writes Derek Bok,
the former president of Harvard and a leading advocate of the existing
race-based system. But one could just as easily argue that the
absence of racial diversity enhances college life. That is one of the
attractions, after all, of historically black colleges like Howard,
Morehouse, and Spelman.
A generation after Bakke, it takes a real effort of will not to
notice how the "diversity" regime has brought about the very opposite of
interracial harmony and understanding. "Diverse" college campuses are
among the most racially balkanized places in America, observes John
McWhorter, the acclaimed black linguist and essayist, in his new book,
Authentically Black (Gotham). "Separate black fraternities and
sororities thrive," he writes, and "the modern black fraternity has not
the slightest interest in admitting white pledges."
Many universities offer separate black orientations, separate black
graduations, and courses in African-American studies that routinely
"double as exercises in fostering hatred of The White Man," McWhorter
says. All fit into "a general atmosphere where black students are
tacitly taught that black 'authenticity' means hunkering down behind a
barricade. . . . Black students typically cluster in their own section
of dining halls, throw their own parties, often have their own theme
houses, and are in general ushered into a separatist ideology that they
often did not have when they came to campus."
And this is of such compelling importance that it should trump the
A double standard in admissions -- one for whites and Asians, a much
lower one for blacks and Hispanics -- is no way to foster respect and
tolerance. It victimizes those who apply to college and get rejected in
favor of less qualified applicants. It feeds the belief that black
students are not as bright as everyone else on campus. It fosters
hypocrisy on the part of college officials. It undermines black
achievement by conditioning black students to think that they can enjoy
the fruits of excellence without doing excellent work. It is, in the
end, institutionalized condescension, and the longer it persists, the
more lasting harm it does.
The phony "diversity" of the racial bean-counters is corrosive and
dishonest. It stigmatizes its supposed beneficiaries and sends the ugly
message that what matters most about us is the color of our skin. If
anything is an affront to the Constitution and to human dignity, race
quotas and preferences are. The Supreme Court cannot say so soon
Like this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Jeff Jacoby is a Boston Globe columnist. Comment by clicking here.
01/10/03: Israeli restraint makes terrorism more likely
01/02/03: The double standard on political hate speech
12/30/02: Good for the spirit, good for the body
12/23/02: The college president who owes a greater duty to a fugitive serial killer than the public or to the law
12/20/02: The death penalty by the numbers
12/16/02: Yes, Virginia, there is (still) a liberal media bias
12/03/02: On the brink of regime change --- in Iran
11/27/02: Light's victory over darkness
11/25/02: A 'Republican' lesson from a Democratic convention
11/22/02: The slippery senator
11/18/02: The campus 'diversity' fraud
11/14/02: MURDER AT A KIBBUTZ
11/01/02: Saddam's shop of horrors
10/24/02: Musings, random and otherwise
10/17/02: Jimma's ignoble prize
10/14/02: New Jersey's bigot laureate
10/11/02: Today it is libs who are most likely to demand the silencing of speech they disapprove of
10/04/02: Learning English from Day 1
09/30/02: The world will follow us to war
09/27/02: The face of antisemitism
09/20/02: Starving time in Zimbabwe
09/14/02: Against moral confusion / 9-12-2002
09/03/02: With 'eternal friends' like these
08/30/02: Enriching survivors was a costly mistake
08/26/02: John Kerry's absent passion
08/23/02: Bonnie, get your gun
08/19/02: A screenwriter's remorse
07/29/02: The real abortion extremists
07/26/02: Another round of Kemp-Roth
07/19/02: Jews among Arabs, Arabs among Jews
07/15/02: Musings, random and otherwise
07/12/02: The new civil rights champions
07/03/02: Riding the rails
07/01/02: The prerequisite to peace
06/24/02: Frisking AlGore
06/17/02: Offense, not defense, is the key to homeland security
06/14/02: Looking at the horror
06/07/02: The cost of a death-penalty moratorium
06/03/02: Executing 'children,' and other death-penalty myths
05/29/02: A real threat?
05/24/02: The message in Arafat's headdress
05/20/02: (Mis)playing the popularity card
05/10/02: Outspoken, Muslim -- and moderate
05/10/02: The heroes in Castro's jails
05/06/02: The disappearing history term paper
05/03/02: Musings, random and otherwise
04/29/02: The canary in Europe's mine
04/15/02: Powell's crazy mission
04/12/02: The slavery reparations hustle
04/08/02: Peace at any price = war
03/26/02: Decency matters most, Caleb
03/22/02: The U.S. embargo and Cuba's future
03/19/02: The keepers of Cuba's conscience
03/15/02: A walk in Havana
02/26/02: Buchanan's lament
02/12/02: What 'peace' means to Arafat
02/08/02: STEVEN EMERSON AND THE NPR BLACKLIST
02/05/02: Antismoking: Who pays?
02/01/02: Turn the Saudis
01/25/02: Making MLK cry
01/21/02: Ted to tax cut: Drop dead
01/18/02: Musings random and otherwise
01/14/02: An ultimatum to Saudi Arabia
01/11/02: Friendship, Saudi-style
01/07/02: Shakedown at Harvard
01/04/02: More guns, more safety
01/02/02: Smears and slanders from the Left
12/28/01: Congress gives to others -- and itself
12/24/01: The littlest peacemakers
12/20/01: How to condemn terror
12/18/01: Greenland once was
12/14/01: Parents who never said ''no''
12/11/01: Wit and (economic) wisdom
12/07/01: THE PALESTINIANS' MYTH
12/04/01: The war against Israel goes on
11/30/01: Tribunals, motorcycles -- and freedom
11/19/01: Friendship and the House of Saud
11/12/01: The Justice Department's unjust monopoly
11/09/01: Muslim, but not extremist
11/02/01: Too good for Oprah
10/29/01: Journalism and the 'neutrality fetish'
10/26/01: Derail these subsidies
10/22/01: Good and evil in the New York Times
10/15/01: Rush Limbaugh's ear
10/08/01: With allies like these
10/01/01: An unpardonable act
09/28/01: THE CENSORS ARE COMING! THE CENSORS ARE COMING!
09/25/01: Speaking out against terror
09/21/01: What the terrorists saw
09/17/01: Calling evil by its name
09/13/01: Our enemies mean what they say
09/04/01: The real bigots
08/31/01: Shrugging at genocide
08/28/01: Big Brother's privacy -- or ours?
08/24/01: The mufti's message of hate
08/21/01: Remembering the 'Wall of Shame'
08/16/01: If I were the editor ...
08/14/01: If I were the Transportation Czar ...
08/10/01: Import quotas 'steel' from us all
08/07/01: Is gay "marriage" a threat?
08/03/01: A colorblind nominee
07/27/01: Eminent-domain tortures
07/24/01: On protecting the flag ... and drivers ... and immigrants
07/20/01: Dying for better mileage
07/17/01: Why Americans would rather drive
07/13/01: Do these cabbies look like bigots?
07/10/01: 'Defeated in the bedroom'
07/06/01: Who's white? Who's Hispanic? Who cares?
07/02/01: Big(oted) man on campus
06/29/01: Still appeasing China's dictators
06/21/01: Cuban liberty: A test for Bush
06/19/01: The feeble 'arguments' against capital punishment
06/12/01: What energy crisis?
06/08/01: A jewel in the crown of self-government
05/31/01: The settlement myth
05/25/01: An award JFK would have liked
05/22/01: No Internet taxes? No problem
05/18/01: Heather has five mommies (and a daddy)
05/15/01: An execution, not a lynching
05/11/01: Losing the common tongue
05/08/01: Olympics 2008: Say no to Beijing
05/04/01: Do welfare mothers a kindness: Make them work
05/01/01: Another man's child
04/24/01: Sharon should have said no
04/02/01: The Inhumane Society
03/30/01: To have a friend, Caleb, be a friend
03/27/01: Is Chief Wahoo racist?
03/22/01: Ending the Clinton appeasement
03/20/01: They're coming for you
03/16/01: Kennedy v. Kennedy
03/13/01: We should see McVeigh die
03/09/01: The Taliban's wrecking job
03/07/01: The No. 1 reason to cut taxes
03/02/01: A Harvard candidate's silence on free speech
02/27/01: A lesson from Birmingham jail
02/20/01: How Jimmy Carter got his good name back
02/15/01: Cashing in on the presidency
02/09/01: The debt for slavery -- and for freedom
02/06/01: The reparations calculation
02/01/01: The freedom not to say 'amen'
01/29/01: Chavez's 'hypocrisy': Take a closer look
01/26/01: Good-bye, good riddance
01/23/01: When everything changed (mostly for the better)
01/19/01: The real zealots
01/16/01: Pardon Clinton?
01/11/01: The fanaticism of Linda Chavez
01/09/01: When Jerusalem was divided
01/05/01 THEY NEVER FORGOT THEE, O JERUSALEM
12/29/00 Liberal hate speech, 2000
12/15/00Does the Constitution expect poor children be condemned to lousy government schools?
12/08/00 Powell is wrong man to run State Department
12/05/00 The 'MCAS' teens give each other
12/01/00 Turning his back on the Vietnamese -- again
11/23/00 Why were the Pilgrims thankful?
11/21/00 The fruit of this 'peace process' is war
11/13/00 Unleashing the lawyers
11/17/00 Gore's mark on history
40 reasons to say NO to Gore
© 2002, Boston Globe