Affirmative action only satisfies the Equal Protection Clause because it's believed that diversity is a compelling government interest. If the diversity is a fraud, because students who are the components of diversity don't do what they are supposed to and interact with other students who are not like them, then Bruni is (unwittingly?) arguing that affirmative action is unconstitutional.
But what Bruni is wittingly doing is laying a foundation for aggressive university action forcing intermixing of the students who are brought to campus. How? He cites "special funds available to campus groups that stage events with other, dissimilar groups" and changing "the layout of campus walkways" and "the architecture of common areas" to cause more paths to cross, and then he moves on to the part that I loathe, piling on academic requirements:
Schools should use academic requirements to make sure that students don’t travel a tract that’s too confining and idiosyncratic not just in intellectual terms but in social and demographic ones, too. For example, some science and math concentrations draw a disproportionate number of male students; if those students are not forced to take courses outside their majors, there’s a profound gender imbalance in their academic lives.Bruni wants viewpoints challenged, so let me challenge his viewpoint that life is unbalanced if you have much more of one sex than the other in your life. And even if we go with the metaphor of balance and call it imbalance, what's profound about it? It sounds quite shallow to me. Why isn't part of the diversity the preference for a masculine or a feminine milieu? You ought to have to answer those questions before you burden students with more academic requirements. Why is forcing people to fill up their schedule with courses they don't want so damned attractive?
I like that Bruni says schools should "also pay greater heed to how gagged so many politically conservative faculty members and students feel." That's not a solution, though. That's only another recognition of a problem.
Posts
40 comments:
and changing "the layout of campus walkways to the architecture of common areas" to cause more paths to cross
Whose 8 year-old daughter came up with that idea?
It’s about an optimal learning environment for all students: white as well as black
I don't think this idiot has walked around campus lately. There's a lot more going on than white & black.
I don't believe this is serious at all. This is pablum generated for the approval of his zombie friends and colleagues. And he got paid for it?
I like that Bruni says schools should "also pay greater heed to how gagged so many politically conservative faculty members and students feel."
Yeah, how are we supposed to fire/expel them if we can't find them?
"Why is forcing people..."
You answered your own question: forcing. Forcing is what appeals.
"Why isn't part of the diversity the preference for a masculine or a feminine milieu?"
The point of all the diversity never seems to be diversity of outcome. It's always about the diversity of the inputs. The glorious celebrated rainbow gets ever more finely subdivided, mixed, and blended, and comes out as putty-colored sludge; a universal identical paste of diversity.
"For example, some science and math concentrations draw a disproportionate number of male students; if those students are not forced to take courses outside their majors, there’s a profound gender imbalance in their academic lives."
Same can be said about education, English, and feminine studies concentrations. Better force those ladies into some math and science courses to correct that gender imbalance.
I have a proposal. Maybe the New York Times, instead of promoting a food writer to op/ed page wise man, could find someone else. Almost anyone would be a better choice.
Tolerance begins with an individual, not class schemes (e.g. color, gender, etc.) of varying legitimacy.
Authoritarian regimes only require that you do not come out and demonstrate against them.
Totalitarian regimes insist that you come out and demonstrate for them.
Bruni is describing an institution--the draft era US military (or at least a idealized war movie version of it).
His proposed means of forced mingling of genders, racial/ethnic and political groups despite preferences in majors revives the spirit of massive court-ordered busing (which resulted in completely dysfunctional inner city school systems and governments).
Liberals, like the Bourbon kings, never learn and they never forget.
Why isn't part of the diversity the preference for a masculine or a feminine milieu?
"Diversity" is really "conformity"* - everything should be equally diverse. (*and, in practice, anti-white racism).
Also "disproportionate number of male students" should read "more male than female students" because "disproportionate" means "Out of proportion, as in size, shape, or amount" and has negative connotations; there is nothing at all wrong with having more male or more female students in given fields or activities.
“It’s a fraud and a betrayal.” Sure, the Bakke thing was a fraud, but not in the sense Bruni intends. Everyone understood from the outset what it was, and Progs have been exploiting it for nearly 40 years now. Nothing was “betrayed” and no one was fooled in conniving to maintain a racial spoils system by any means necessary.
“Affirmative action only satisfies the Equal Protection Clause because it's believed that diversity is a compelling government interest. If the diversity is a fraud . . .” There you go again, doing the lawproffy thing, assuming the EP clause has any meaning or imposes any constraint. As longs Progs don’t have the fifth vote, AA in whatever form Progs like may be “unconstitutional” for a few more years; after that, the fifth vote will “find” that diversity or its equivalent, to be achieved by active discrimination, was always intended and in fact necessary.
“But what Bruni is wittingly doing is laying a foundation for aggressive university action forcing intermixing of the students who are brought to campus . . . Why isn't part of the diversity the preference for a masculine or a feminine milieu? You ought to have to answer those questions before you burden students with more academic requirements. Why is forcing people to fill up their schedule with courses they don't want so damned attractive?” Questions, questions. But you already answered them, sorta kinda. It’s not about whether it’s “attractive.” It’s about whether Progs can use power to command resources and force non-Progs into line (whatever the line du jour happens to be). For the Left, force is good. Has been since, oh, 1789.
“I like that Bruni says schools should "also pay greater heed to how gagged so many politically conservative faculty members and students feel." That's not a solution, though. That's only another recognition of a problem.” It’s sweet you “like” that and sweet of him to say so. But it’s not a “recognition of a problem.” It’s a CYA exercise by Bruni. Sure, schools “should.” Except no one at all relevant cares one bit. Gagging the yahoos is a positive good.
I want to see what Laslo does with this "forcing" meme.
Interesting. Just yesterday the Washington Post reported on an Angela Merkel speech calling multiculturalism a sham; and right after Time just gave her a little multicultural tickle.
"changing "the layout of campus walkways to the architecture of common areas" to cause more paths to cross
It's well known that students walk where it pleases them to walk, and thus walkways are used only to the extent that they have been located where students would have walked anyway. So what are they going to do to keep students on the walkways, hide punji sticks in the grass?
Sooner or later someone with influence is going to get up and say what many of us have been saying for years (decades)--when it comes to diversity, the emperor has no clothes (or more colloquially) "diversity sucks." It's just a synonym for quotas for all aspects of life. Excepts it's never all aspects. No one demands diversity on professional basketball teams or in safeties or wide receivers, in track or professional boxing. If colleges could get rid of diversity both as a policy and in the number of people devoted to its enforcement they could probably cut tuition 20% right off the bat. Except of course we'd have all these new riots on campus by people who got hired right out of the School of Victimology and now have no purpose in life, which is how it should be.
We need to separate affirmative action from diversity.
Affirmative action was intended as a corrective measure for decades of discrimination, but it's failed miserably to correct many of the ills that were blamed on discrimination. Diversity which is at the heart of classic liberalism in being open to other things became the replacement word for affirmative action. This is why "diversity" has failed to achieve any of the ills that were blamed on discrimination and measured by a lack of diversity, essentially sub-populations that didn't reflect the overall population.
The key thing we see that as a result of affirmative action or diversity efforts to place people into schools or professions for which they are not prepared is a self-segretation within that school or profession that is couched in terms of "support" but don't provide positive results. Further efforts in diversity closely approximate separate but equal.
What we need to to start talking about integration again. A word that has fallen out of favor.
At some point supporters of affirmative action will have to come to grips with what a terrible idea it is, and every defense of it fails to hold up. "Diversity" is just the latest justification for judging people on race, and the fact that no one is trying to argue that "Black Student Organizations" or historically black universities (e.g., Howard) need far more whites, Asians and Hispanics so they too can benefit from "diversity" just proves what a sham it all is.
Just accept it--you support AA because you're not comfortable with the fact that without it, blacks fare very poorly when competing for slots in schools and jobs. But instead of hiding it with the AA Band-Aid (or telling yourself it's due to structural racism) perhaps you could do more good by addressing why blacks are not competing adequately. Otherwise, plan on another couple generations of excuses and band-aids.
Who are these conservative faculty members? There are a few, but so scattered that they are probably not a viable breeding population.
I sympathize with his objective, but don't have much use for his typically progressive solutions - tax (the time of students), dictate (the intellectual pursuits of students and the types of acceptable interactions) and spend (the student labor required for an expanded course load and the associated tuition.) I was in a five year chemical engineering program in the 60's that was composed of 17 - 19 quarter hours of course work, including 3 or 4 three-hour labs per week. I essentially went to class or lab from 8 to 4 or 5 each day. We did take some non-technical courses such as English, economics and history, but, I'm trying to think which engineering courses I could have dropped in order to accommodate the diversity dictated overload. It seems to me the best I could have hoped for under Mr Bruni's system was to become a less competent engineer, albeit with a broader perspective. In my later career, when I was designing and building chemical plants whose misconstruction could take out a small town, no one was asking me whether I had any experience with different cultures or political perspectives. They were looking for safe spaces, so to speak.
I appreciate Mr Bruni's apparently honest description of the shortcomings of affirmative action, but I am still thankful I came up in a different time and with different educational objectives.
Of course Bruni is suggesting forced busing to create what is a "compelling government interest". Old bad ideas recycled are the best ideas. Big government lovers reap what they sow. As long as there are constitutional "experts" who believe that the government has valid "compelling interests" that require force, we will continue down the path to dissolution.
Diversity, of course, is a total fraud -- perpetuated by the Left to accrue power.
1900 Princeton admissions - Sorry black kid, you can't come in. Not the proper family or pedigree.
1950 Princeton admissions - Sorry black kid, you can't come in: Your SAT and GPA were a bit lower than our admission standard. However, we are very concerned about the plight of the urban negro, and appreciate your unswerving efforts to overcome said adversity. Best wishes to you in the future. Try Rutgers.
1975 Princeton admissions -- Congrats black kid! While your SAT and GPA are slightly lower than our admission standard, due to systemic past racism, and the extra challenges you have faced because of such racism, you are in! Have you seen our new Black Studies Department?
2010 Princeton admissions -- Congrats black kid! While your SAT and GPA are well below our admission standard, you are in -- because Diversity! Have you seen our Black Studies Department and are you a registered voter? Last, may we take a photo of you for our application brochures?
But these colleges have black student centers, paid with taxpayer funds where black students can congregate without having to interact with those pesky white students. And yet it is a wonder that the diverse students do not congregate together. Jeez!
there’s a profound gender imbalance in their academic lives.
Wait...I thought gender was meaningless, and a false construct used by the Patriarchy to oppress women...
How? He cites "special funds available to campus groups that stage events with other, dissimilar groups" and changing "the layout of campus walkways" and "the architecture of common areas" to cause more paths to cross, and then he moves on to the part that I loathe, piling on academic requirements:
Shockingly his solution is money. I see he's as serious as lefties usually are with "layout of campus walkways", what a joke.
If you want more integration stop raced based initiation programs that teach everyone (a) everything you don't like is some other race's fault and (b) you're competing with other race based interest groups for resources and attention so consider them your enemy.
My university was an early adopter of much of the activist nonsense that seems ubiquitous today such as the multicultural class requirement and segregated initiations (in the 80s). When we had our dorm initiation it was obvious the various races had already had one - not only did they already know each other they were openly hostile to others. I worked the room looking for similar majors and the only failures were the two minority students that wouldn't speak to whites. [Both had white roommates - that worked out well].
The exceptions to the hostility were the football players. People aren't like this generally, they are taught to be this way.
But these colleges have black student centers,..
The properly progressive thing is to simultaneously fund both segregation and integration efforts.
Also, "diversity" doesn't really work when the Left is no longer about "integration" and is now all about "racial purity". When "race matters", you just aren't going to get people mixing with other races.
What we need to to start talking about integration again. A word that has fallen out of favor.
Largely because the legacy of Booker T. Washington and MLK Jr. have been abandoned, and the legacy of Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X embraced.
The fraud of the "diversity" rationale for affirmative action is that no one ever believed it or cared about it. Affirmative action is about helping black people. Period. It's only about getting more black kids into better colleges. No one ever thought that diversity mattered, it was always a fig leaf, and a transparent one.
You can at least make some kind of legitimate argument for helping black people. But you could never make a legitimate argument for diversity, because you were always only looking at certain kinds, for certain groups, and at certain levels. No one ever wanted to get Albanian students to "critical mass" at the University of Michigan. Diversity of viewpoint? Don't make me laugh. As for educational benefits, no one's math class has ever been improved by kicking out Japanese kids. The entire edifice of affirmative action has been fundamentally dishonest for 40 years. Duh.
Jack Wayne: "Of course Bruni is suggesting forced busing to create what is a "compelling government interest"."
Ah, forced busing. Boston. The 70's. What an enlightened city. The only way to tell Boston in the 70's apart from Birmingham AL in the 60's is the availability of Lobster in Boston. Which was probably more than made up for with outstanding shrimp in Alabama off the gulf coast
I still have a, okay, romantic view of a classroom where black and white and brown kids and kids of different religions and backgrounds all get together and learn about each other. Play baseball and go to each other's homes and become riends.
I had a Jewish friend in 6th grade; we played baseball together. I learned about him. He learned about my Catholic upbringing. Sort of covertly, by osmosis. I am convinced that that experience made me a better person, a kinder person.
I insist on not growing up.
Wait! You mean the Bruni article is NOT a satire?
I recall a wine tasting show (1980s) with Frank Bruni and a delightful English woman. They were tasting one particular wine that Bruni was raving about. The Brit said to him, "Don't you think the wine has turned/corked"?
Bruni readily agreed. He was admittedly just going on for the show.
Forget it, Jake. It's the New York Times.
@ Gusty Winds. Angela Merkel is just trying to save her career. She won't, because she cannot. Her political party is also dead but just doesn't know it yet.
Safe Spaces = GHETTO!!!!!!!!
The Ghetto Dweller drags his / her ghetto with them wherever they migrate to in this race/ ethnic/ religious/ gender conscious world. It I so boring and tiresome.
Lawyerly beat me to it, but I too wondered about the line that men in mostly-male STEM classes should be "forced" to take classes with more women in them.
Hmmmm. Universities are around 60% female these days. If the science and engineering depts. are mostly male, that means the ratio in the others is even higher.
So say that for every course a man enrolled in a science/engineering program takes outside his major, a woman in English lit. or Psychology or Mass Communications has to take a course in math or physics or chemistry. Not good? Unfair? Why?
STEM female students have great times, these days. My daughter just graduated from our enormous state university with a MechEng BS degree, and has job offers from both the government lab and the oilfield lab where she interned. The highest honors in her graduating class went to a Hispanic male. Half her graduating class were nominal minorities (nonwhite), about a quarter were female. About half the freshmen STEM students graduated with a STEM degree, the rest went elsewhere after the classwork eliminated them.
Her graduating STEM class became somewhat famous as freshmen, when 75 of them were put into a required pass/fail humanities class freshman year. The class, supposedly about art, was pure political indoctrination. The STEM majors, realizing this class did not affect GPA, argued with the commissar, err, the prof, from the first day of class. They ridiculed his illogical assertions, bombed him with actual historical facts, and within a few weeks there were no more lectures, just reading assignments. The other 75 kids in the class joined in the disrespect of the indoctrination. There were no failures assigned in the class, lest there be complaints outside the classroom to administrators.
STEM kids are gonna be OK.
Do we really need aggressive mixing? Why not just do away with all the roommate matching and affinity housing that have crept in over the past 20 years and go back to randomly assigned roommates?
Post a Comment