Letters
…getting pleasure from reading
the obituaries…
Defining diversity
Last October President Randel issued a statement on the
conduct of campus debate of contentious public issues.
Much that he urged is eminently sensible: the University
should encourage debate, support a diversity of individual
views, refrain from taking sides, bar violence and intimidation,
oppose intolerance and prejudice, and promote mutual respect
and trust.
Then the statement goes awry. It apotheosizes
Diversity, a buzzword of our time, as an exalted
purpose—overarching, undefined, unquestioned—for
which all must strive. “We must ensure the diversity
of this community by ensuring that everyone is prepared
to subscribe to the principles for which the University
stands and is prepared to embrace diversity,
whether of race, religion, gender, or, yes, even academic
discipline. No part of the University community can think
of itself as immune from this concern for diversity.
An unprecedented number of programs is in place to
increase diversity in the functioning of our academic
programs and in the ways in which we carry on our business
affairs and our relations with the neighborhood and city
of which we are a part. Each of us must believe that embracing—not
merely tolerating—diversity is a personal
obligation.” [Emphasis added.]
What exactly are we asked to embrace
and increase? To many, “diversity” means the
presence of persons of color: “to increase diversity”
means to increase the proportion of persons of color in
a community, thus decreasing the proportion of whites.
This treats people differently based on race. But treating
people differently based on race is racial discrimination,
a practice for which President Randel has declared “zero
tolerance.”
Many people believe that “diversity”
includes women, homosexuals, and the disabled: “to
increase diversity” means to increase the proportion
of such persons, thus decreasing the proportion of their
opposites. This treats people differently based on their
gender, sexual orientation, or disability. But whether
people should be treated differently on these bases is
a question of morality or law, which is not settled by
the label “diversity.”
Some argue that “diversity”
should cover political and religious affiliation: “to
increase diversity” would mean to increase the proportion
of, say, political conservatives and religious fundamentalists
on campus. An institution would ask student and faculty
applicants to disclose their political and religious affiliations
and would treat them differently on these grounds. But
this would employ questionable bases of discrimination,
invade freedoms of political and religious belief and
association, and further balkanize and politicize the
university. These harms would not be removed by calling
the goal, “diversity.”
In these examples the cult of Diversity
operates by classifying people based on their membership
in certain groups, then favoring them accordingly. Is
this what President Randel had in mind?
In the dictionary “diversity”
means variety. Its opposite is similarity. Similarity
and diversity are ancient, basic aspects of existence.
Neither is good or bad in itself; either may be good or
bad, depending on the circumstances. As gods, or demons,
both are false.
Curtis Crawford, PhB’46, DB’51
Charlottesville, Virginia
Advertising