October 9, 2017

"Even on campus, where the modern diversity doctrine was fashioned, Berrey found that the doctrine itself was hard to define."

"The prevailing wisdom seemed to be that 'racial minorities' were 'culturally distinct from but culturally equivalent to white people.' (The cultural differences were considered real enough to make diversity valuable but not real enough to explain, say, disparities in academic achievement.) At one point, Michigan’s admissions-office Web site pictured a welter of enthusiastic believers, including a student who declared, 'Diversity is one of the issues I’m most passionate about.” In a book called 'The Diversity Bargain,' another scholar, Natasha K. Warikoo, concludes that students at Harvard have fully internalized the logic of diversity as an engine of mutual profit. 'Interaction with peers of color is a resource some white students feel entitled to—or sometimes wrongly deprived of,' she writes. 'To many white students, minority students do not hold up their end of the diversity bargain when they join the Black Students Association or sit together in the cafeteria.'"

From "The Limits of 'Diversity'/Where affirmative action was about compensatory justice, diversity is meant to be a shared benefit. But does the rationale carry weight?" by Kelefa Sanneh in The New Yorker.

63 comments:

traditionalguy said...

Good thinking. She is speaking truth to power. She will need body guards.

rehajm said...

They still accept white students at Harvard?

Mountain Maven said...

Affirmative Action is a failed policy. But it can't be easily rolled back. Even when the last generation of Calif voters made reverse discrimination unconstitutional, the colleges are still filled with students who can't graduate . Many who do end up as glorified clerks in big organizations.
And if minorities want to self segregate, it is to their detriment.
Forced diversity is a disaster. Maybe with the political pendulum swinging right, we can move away from past foolish social experiments.

Lloyd W. Robertson said...

Diversity expresses a great hope. What we mean by "progress," especially in the West, includes a breakdown of old national, ethnic and religious boundaries. So maybe if we break them down even more, we'll have even more progress. This probably has some support in Hegel and his followers. But in practical terms, there may be no actual question to which "more diversity" is a great answer. With open borders, some newcomers will be more of a problem than others--that is one truth of the Trump campaign that progressives didn't want to hear. No one wants all that much diversity at one time.

n.n said...

The progressive diversity doctrine discriminates between individuals based on the "color of their skin". It's a lightly sophisticated, slightly nuanced regurgitation of racism, sexism, etc.

May I suggest diversity of individuals a la judge people by the "content of their character"?

Unknown said...

Sixty Minutes did a piece back in nineties about black students self-segregating in universities. This might be a good thing to track down. Black students at Ga Tech in this timeframe referred to a "black section" of the campus dining facility. This surprised and disappointed me as a grad student, a Navy veteran used to the military policy and culture of tolerance. The diversity industry promotes tribalism, not inclusion.

Just an old country lawyer said...

Having attended segregated public schools in suburban Atlanta through the 11th grade (1966) I well remember the cry of "separate but equal" (it never was) and being amused by the stupidity of it all when they built a black high school just a few hundred yards from our white high school when everybody knew that segregation was on its very last legs. Why would anybody want to go back to that?

rcocean said...

I've never understood why AA wasn't unconstitutional or in violation of the 1964 Civil rights law. But its seems you can't discriminate based on race, REALLY means you can discriminate based on race, as long as its white men.

It's in the language there, somewhere, if you look hard enough. At least, Grandma O'Connor was able to find it.

MadisonMan said...

Why not choose Diversity based on parent income? Or whether a kid has two parents? Or is from a broken marriage? Or is from a rural area? Or is 2nd-generation American? Or is a SAR/DAR? Or is a Republican? Or has Communist Parents?

Why is Diversity defined in terms of race only?

MikeR said...

Loved that article. Kudos.

walter said...

It's as if social engineering can have unintended consequences..

Ralph L said...

Are they still peers if some people are admitted with significantly lower scores and high school rigor? Feelings of inferiority (and sports teams) might be causing the self-segregation.

At my college, most upperclassmen ate in 9 individual eating houses of about 60 people. They had a Black Student Coalition house ten years after I left. Because of costs, I think they're all foodless social or Greek houses now, which is a shame.

AlbertAnonymous said...

Diversity Now! We’re all equal! Celebrate our differences as strengths!

...but you people over there in that identity group, you suck! You are evil and deplorable.

Fuck you people!!!!

Gahrie said...

Why is Diversity defined in terms of race only?



It's not...gender and sexual preference now count too.

The people who have benefited the most from Affirmative Action are White women.

Earnest Prole said...

It turns out that if you sort students by race in order to admit them, they continue sorting themselves by race after they’ve been admitted. Who knew?

mccullough said...

The Asians will have to point out the overrepresentsion of Jewish students at Ivy League schools. If the schools are 25% Jewish students, with Jewish people 2% of the US, then the schools can also be over 50% Asian students, given their 5% of the US pop.

Sally327 said...

I find it amusing, or at least interesting, that part about how white students look forward to encountering diversity as part of their college experience and are disappointed when the non-white students hang out with each other and don't interact. I'm not sure how the non-white students would feel about that, probably another example of white privilege, we're not here just so the white students can have an experience. Anyway, all the emphasis on diversity, it probably just adds to the divide.

I grew up at a time when the main word was integration, schools, neighborhoods, jobs. Nobody talks about integration anymore. Possibly because it was a failure? There was integration but it only resulted in more segregation. For the most part anyway.

cronus titan said...

My grandparents immigrated from Sardinia in 1920 or so. THey raised a family and built a business. In 1939, there was a US citizenship school in Havana. They were sent there, had to pass citizenship exams (including English proficiency and allowed to re-enter legally. All immigration papers said they immigrated from Havana (nt one word about Italy), making them Hispanic (I know, I know, some on the left think Cubans do not count since they mostly vote Republican but stay with me). THey never spoke of this because they were embarrassed. The only reason I found out was helping our son do an ancestry project for school.

When our children applied to colleges, I brought this up and asked whether we were considered Hispanic for the school. Very amusing to watch them squirm. We did not claim Hispanic (although they made it quite clear that chances for admission, and more likely financial aid, would be much higher).

We are not alone in these types of mixed families.

Daniel Richwine said...

Separate but equal?

walter said...

Blogger Sally327 said...
I grew up at a time when the main word was integration, schools, neighborhoods, jobs. Nobody talks about integration anymore.
---
Same goes for "melting pot".

AlbertAnonymous said...

And the only Justice on the Supreme Court who will call it the BS racial discrimination that it is, is the black guy!

Read Thomas’s dissents in the Fischer v UT cases. Great commentary on how the BS arguments FOR racial discrimination through segregation (which SCOTUS rejected) became the BS arguments for “diversity” which apparently is NOT racial discrimination (arguments SCOTUS accepted).

But then again Thomas isn’t really black, or black enough, or he’s accused of being a sexual harasser like Harvey Weinstein.

Wait is that ok now? It’s so hard to keep up. Screw it he’s still not black enough so he can’t be correct about this topic.

Besides, progress! reasons! science!

Jupiter said...

Affirmative action has winners and losers. But the winners are all in college, while the losers were not admitted.

This means that to the white kids on campus, the blacks are more than welcome. They are "curve fodder", the people who get the C's. And they are also black people you can talk to. You can ask them if it's OK to touch their hair, and laugh at how pissed off they get. They don't hit you and steal your phone, like real black people would.

Jupiter said...

The Asians are another matter. You will recall, that when the blacks at Yale were having their "Oh, my God, it's finals time, and I don't know shit!" demonstrations, marching through the library and disrupting the real students, it was the Asian guy who told them to STFU.

rehajm said...

You will recall, that when the blacks at Yale were having their "Oh, my God, it's finals time, and I don't know shit!" demonstrations, marching through the library and disrupting the real students, it was the Asian guy who told them to STFU.

Worth a look back...

Jupiter said...

rcocean said...
"I've never understood why AA wasn't unconstitutional or in violation of the 1964 Civil rights law."

The SCOTUS decided it was unconstitutional if you did it to help the people admitted. So the universities argued that they were doing it because a "diverse" student body was a benefit for all students. The Petting Zoo theory of affirmative action.

Michael K said...

"They still accept white students at Harvard?"

It's Asians they don't admit.

But that might change.,

Following the initial reports that the document alluded to “policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants,” the Trump administration maintained that the probe would be launched on behalf of Asian-Americans who penned a formal complaint against the policy in 2015.


“This Complaint is filed on behalf of the constituents of the undersigned Asian-American Associations and Organizations including Asian Americans who, because of their race, have been unfairly rejected by Harvard College because of such unlawful use of race in the admissions process, and/or who seek the opportunity to apply for admission without being discriminated against because of their race,” the 50-page document read.

“Over the last two decades, Asian-American applicants to Harvard University and other Ivy League colleges have increasingly experienced discrimination in the admissions process,” the complaint continued.

“Many Asian-American students who have almost perfect SAT scores, top 1% GPAs, plus significant awards or leadership positions in various extracurricular activities have been rejected by Harvard University and other Ivy League Colleges while similarly situated applicants of other races have been admitted,” it added.


The shit is about to hit the fan.

Michael K said...

" The Petting Zoo theory of affirmative action."

I like that,

Owen said...

Jupiter: "Finals time, and I don't know shit..." Similar situation at Dartmouth where BLM demonstration broke up the study session at Baker Library (with racist insults). Funny how that works.

Also from Dartmouth, circa 1972: I remember being confused because the black kids had demanded their own house. Which was most unwelcoming to white guys. I had to go there to give a friend a book or something; and the stink-eye was strong. I didn't understand. I was still back in Woodstock or something.

It's a business. They're trying to protect their franchise and sell stuff. The stuff they sell is guilt and expiation.

I stopped buying a long time ago.

Angel-Dyne said...

Odd how human beings in the past eagerly sought out (or stole) what was superior, interesting, useful, beautiful, and innovative in other cultures, and absorbed it, adapted it, renewed it, and sent it out again (rinse and repeat throughout history), without ever having had some HR drone or "diversity consultant" explain to them why paying attention to other people outside our own group might be useful or just interesting.

Maybe it was because, alas, all our ancestors reserved the right to pass judgment on other cultures and people, and felt justified in rejecting and deprecating what they considered to be unworthy or inferior in those cultures - tsk, tsk. As well as the right to hang with their own in comfy cultural coherence. And we can't have that.

Bay Area Guy said...

The modern day Left does not believe in the American experiment, and, radicalized in college, they want to slowly unravel the American experiment, step by step.

1. Tear down Civil War statues -- Bobby Lee was racist!
2. Ban Columbus Day -- European sailors were racist.
3. Kneel for National Anthem -- American has racial injustice.

I could go on and on, like a Tennessee Coats piece, but the bottom line, is that the Left wants to stir up black folks with past racial grievances to change present public policy.

Unknown said...

Separate but equal? Is that where we are going back to but this time the twist is the diverse are requesting the exclusion?

Jupiter said...

It was a long time ago, but I still recall how stressful Dead Week and Finals Week were. And I was a smart kid at a state university. I can only imagine what it must be like when you are a moderately bright black kid who has been purchased by Yale so the white kids can touch your hair. Everyone used to talk about how smart you were, all your classes were easy, and it was all just a big joke anyway. Calculus-Shmalculus, let's cop some weed. Now you are busting your ass, and you are on the verge of flunking. Something is not right. Something is not *fair*! And here's this Asian freak, this fucking never-been-stoned-in-his-life math robot, telling you "Is library!". Fucker can barely speak English, but he is waxing your ass! WTF?

Roy Jacobsen said...

Question for our hostess: Does the term "compensatory justice" have any actual legal meaning, or is it (as I suspect) just a variation on the infinitely flexible term "social justice?"

Roy Jacobsen said...

Never mind. I found it defined in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management as "The fairness that obtains when an agent adequately compensates a party whom he or she has injured for the losses that party suffered." Seems to me, though, that it's being hijacked here in service of "social Justice."

sykes.1 said...

Diversity is an evil. It weakens communities and organizations by introducing strife and discord. As Chateau Heartiste says, "Diversity + Proximity = War."

The US is a multicultural, multiethnic empire, a prison house of nations, and such empires are only held together by brute force, Iraq and Saddam Hussein being the best recent example. Eventually, the diversity agitators will raise tensions in this country so high that we will get our Hitler, and our secret police, and our concentration camps. We've come close before with Wilson and Roosevelt, but this time we'll "succeed."

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I've always asked for some quantification of the many benefits of diversity. It's damn hard to get an answer.

lgv said...

I find the discussion laughable. Someone finally discovered the conflict of diversity, AA, safe spaces, etc. If diversity were that important and beneficial, why isn't it employed elsewhere, say the NBA or NFL?

There will always someone against color blind admissions or hiring. Always. The answer for Asians and Whites is simple. Identify your self as AA or Hispanic on the application, since racial fluidity is now acceptable. Who knows, it may even get you on the faculty at Harvard.

Jack Wayne said...

I believe the worst thing SCOTUS ever did was to condone different classes of citizens. They started with the progressive income tax where rich people are not equal under the law to poor people. It has progressed to the point where clear minority classes are not as preferred as other minority classes. Sellers are not as preferred as buyers. The intellectual rot displayed by our legal class is deplorable. And likely will prove fatal to our Social Contract. But it’s all good, right law professors?

Sebastian said...

About the article:

“Colleges are transparent.” It is to laugh.

“The school had a legitimate interest in . . .” – as the Constitution clear states. Wait, lemme check—where was that again? Must be in the penumbrae of the emanations of substantive due process, or something.

“How diverse do we want our fire departments to be?” Begging the question.

“The prevailing wisdom seemed to be that “racial minorities” were “culturally distinct from but culturally equivalent to white people.” (The cultural differences were considered real enough to make diversity valuable but not real enough to explain, say, disparities in academic achievement.)” Nice point.

Sebastian said...

The Prog Position today: flaunting sexual assets for personal advantage does vast harm; flaunting racial assets for personal advantage does vast good.

Birches said...

Dangerously close to Charles Murray territory. I bet the SPLC is readying their press release now.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"The US is a multicultural, multiethnic empire, a prison house of nations, and such empires are only held together by brute force, Iraq and Saddam Hussein being the best recent example."

The avoidance of that state of affairs was what the much-derided concept of "the melting pot" was meant to accomplish. Unlike other countries, we do not have blood and soil ties, and so the ideas embedded in the Constitution and participation in certain civic rituals (like celebrating the 4th of July or standing for the Anthem in sports arenas prior to games, for instance)must be the glue that binds us together. The Left has worked hard to weaken those bonds and replace them with the ties of blood and tribe. How progressive of them! The same process is at work in other former British colonies, like Canada and Australia.

"Eventually, the diversity agitators will raise tensions in this country so high that we will get our Hitler, and our secret police, and our concentration camps"

And leftists are just fine with that because they think they'll be running the camps and we deplorables will be the inmates. One of the most ridiculous aspects of the Left's authoritarian "diversity" is how white leftists speak of whites as if they are not white themselves. Do they honestly believe the brown and black people they champion see them as somehow not white by virtue of their political beliefs? White leftists imagine that they will still be running the radical show after the Revolution. History says otherwise. The furies they helped unleash will consume them in the end.

Jupiter said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...
"I've always asked for some quantification of the many benefits of diversity. It's damn hard to get an answer."

Really. I asked a couple questions headed in that direction on an internal forum at my last employer (not Google, but close). The director of HR took time out of his busy schedule to answer me directly. Essentially, "STFU", he explained. A lot like what they said at Google, that essentially to even be willing to consider the possibility that there were differences in capabilities between races or sexes was getting very near to creating a hostile work environment. Very near indeed. "You are getting warmer ..." This was not an anonymous forum, and I am a coward where my food bowl is concerned, so I took his advice.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Jupiter,

The SCOTUS decided it was unconstitutional if you did it to help the people admitted. So the universities argued that they were doing it because a "diverse" student body was a benefit for all students. The Petting Zoo theory of affirmative action.

It's worse than that. The only (conceded) purpose of admitting minority students is to enhance the educations of white students. The minority students themselves are of little to no account, provided they perform well on football fields and basketball courts, don't get into too many sexual scrapes, and keep their averages at C or above. I'm exaggerating, but only a little. John Rosenberg at discriminations.us has developed this theory at greatest length, though I see his blogging has radically slowed down of late.

As for Asian students, they are worse even than white students, which is why they keep having to out-perform them to get into top schools. Why is it, when I hear "diversity officers" discussing this, there's always a whiff of "Besides, they all look alike"?

Jupiter said...

The rather delicate position is
a) the company has never practiced sex or race discrimination (that would make us liable)
b) nonetheless, a sexually and racially discriminatory situation exists (we blame the universities)
c) therefore, there is a huge untapped pool of talent which it is imperative we take advantage of.

OK, that's at least coherent, albeit utterly baseless. Then they mix in a judicious helping of

d) women and minorities bring special viewpoints to the workplace, which are inherently valuable.

This is justified by pointing out that many of our products are used by women, and only women can design products that women will want to buy. For example, men cannot design clothing that women want to wear. Only women have any notion of what women want.

Somehow, they never go there with race. I think that is because it would be racist to say that the Chinese have desires that only they can comprehend. But it's OK to say that about women, because you are following the Althouse rule; you are claiming that women are different because they're better.

It's a minefield, but they have the training to traverse it. The trick is to always mention "women and minorities" together when you are making general statements, but only provide semi-specific examples for women. As Oscar Wilde said, "Comparisons are odious". He might have added, "except when they benefit women".

Michael K said...

A comment on a biodiversity post at west huner blog.

A significant portion of past eugenic selection was simply a result of past societies being much poorer than us. They could not afford welfare, and therefore were constantly culling people via various means. (Of course how “fit” the losers of these processes were… hard to say.) The lack of welfare also meant that most societies were not obvious magnets for migrants seeking an easy life. And they routinely put to death criminals who we keep alive, perhaps imprisoning for a while, then let out into the breeding population.

Pretty convincing stuff,

rehajm said...

Also from Dartmouth, circa 1972: I remember being confused because the black kids had demanded their own house.

Cutter Hall I presume? In the 80s I recall on a couple of occasions my grandfather lamenting the irony of exclusion that existed there. Apparently Mr. Cutter was a strong proponent of racial inclusiveness at a time when it wasn't popular.

(full disclosure: there's a familial relationship for me, too)

Rick said...

Actions are louder than words as the economic theory of revealed preference incorporates.

The path to truth is to ignore the self-serving justifications and evaluate the totality of outcomes. Diversity Doctrine was designed to ensure the arguer with the greatest victim status wins. There was never anything more to the issue. This is obvious by advocates denying any responsibility nominally included but which would contradict their true initiative.

Achilles said...

MadisonMan said...

Why is Diversity defined in terms of race only?

Because the democrats are still working to segregate the country and maintain their plantations. They just look a bit different today.

n.n said...

Why is Diversity defined in terms of race only?

It's not. Among its diverse criteria are: sex, gender (e.g. orientation), physiological condition, economic class, and, covertly, tribal alliance.

William Chadwick said...

In the Fortune 500 company where I toiled for all-too-long a period, everyone with any smarts knew when HR used the term "diversity," it meant "Black."

Roy Jacobsen said...

Why is Diversity defined in terms of race only?

It's not. Among its diverse criteria are: sex, gender (e.g. orientation), physiological condition, economic class, and, covertly, tribal alliance.


Diversity of thought, on the other hand, is anathema.

tcrosse said...

In the belly of the corporate beast where I toiled for so many years, we were constantly hectored about Diversity, as part of the settlement of a discrimination suit. To no avail, because we stubbornly remained White. Which, incidentally, is what Top Management were, to a Man.

Jupiter said...

Diversity isn't just for black people any more. But it is a rather interesting codeword. I was treated to a long disquisition on the internal forum by a woman (I assume from her name) who apparently knew a Mexican, or was related to one, or something. Anyway, she wrote without apparent irony about what those of us who were "not diverse" could do to make life easier for those like herself, who were "diverse".

The Godfather said...

The Supreme Court really screwed the pooch on this "diversity" scam. Yes, diversity can be a good thing if it occurs because of non-discrimination, but not if it's used as an excuse for discrimination in favor of some unqualified people and against qualified people. If the excuse for admitting unqualified Blacks is that their presence will enhance the educational experience of Whites, well how is that different from making the Blacks be the Whites' pets? This is all an excuse for our failure to provide adequate primary and secondary education for African Americans. Let's man up (sorry to be sexist) and admit and deal with the real problem.

n.n said...

Diversity of thought, on the other hand, is anathema.

The right principles enable and optimize tolerance of divergent, even incompatible perspectives. The trick is to discover and characterize a set of principles (guides) that are internally, externally, and mutually consistent, and will engender a fit outcome. Then we must qualify fit. Many and perhaps most people would qualify "fit" as harmonious.

Ray said...

The Frankfurt School of Marxist Analysis for Class / Race rhetoric / propaganda beloved in Education is feeding a lot of the Race / Diversity issues in the US. Basically the substituted Race and Sex for Class. And this has created a huge Overton Window on the entire subject of Race and Gender. The DOJ investigation into college admissions is a good start. There is so much more to get done, so we can finally get to the color blind world envisioned by MLK.

I am hopeful that the Dept. of Education may fix some of the issues that are hurting the Black Community under Betsy Devos, so they can successfully compete in a color blind world at the equal level they should be.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

If this is not criminal thread-jacking, I'd like to draw attention to the long article in the same New Yorker about guardians ad litem appointed by judges to supervise elderly people supposedly incapable of caring for themselves. The gist of the article is that the "supervision" consists in (1) hustling the old folks off their property and into "assisted living"; and (2) then auctioning off the house and any remaining valuables in it, which are likely to be substantial as the residents were allowed only what they could carry. Needless to say, the owners of the property saw none of the proceeds.

The case that begins the article is of Rudy and Rennie in NV, with a named "guardian" and a named judge, but this scourge isn't limited to one state.

Ann, I've been waiting for a "Cafe" to post this in, but haven't seen one today.

Rick said...

covertly, tribal alliance.

In many circumstances the diversity mania is primarily a left wing allegiance surety campaign.

gurugeorge said...

I'm not sure "Diversity" was EVER about giving the minority a fair shake (except in terms of window-dressing for the rubes and useful idiots), but rather always about weakening the social cohesion of the majority white, European/American culture.

JohnofAustria said...

Well, white students know that not having enough non-white friends and peers will make them de facto white supremacists in the eyes of the Cultural Marxists in charge, so they rightly demand the ability to associate with their "diverse" peers.

wildswan said...

"Michael K said...
A comment on a biodiversity post at west huner blog.

A significant portion of past eugenic selection was simply a result of past societies being much poorer than us. They could not afford welfare, and therefore were constantly culling people via various means. (Of course how “fit” the losers of these processes were… hard to say.) The lack of welfare also meant that most societies were not obvious magnets for migrants seeking an easy life. And they routinely put to death criminals who we keep alive, perhaps imprisoning for a while, then let out into the breeding population."


Thing is: to have eugenics, you have to actually define in what direction natural selection is going. Then you institute social policies to shove the process along faster. You disadvantage one group, you advantage another. In the actual history of eugenics there have been several different directions proposed as the direction of natural selection. Once it was thought natural selection's goal was upper-class English and Americans. Then it was the Nordics. Then it was people with a high IQ as measured by IQ tests developed by eugenic society members (social biology). And now it is twofold: those people who create families (biodemography) and those people who have not sustained DNA damage from methyl sidechains resulting from stressful pasts (neo-social biology). So you can't say that any society of the past was eugenic without explaining which school of eugenics you belong to. Most eugenic supporters of today subscribe to social biology eugenics as exemplified by Charles Murray. But the major national eugenic societies have moved on because they have realized that the twin studies which were the "scientific basis" for social biology/IQ eugenics were flawed. Those studies disregarded the fact that the action of genes could be altered by epigenetic factors, hence those studies are worthless.

This doesn't get into why all forms of eugenics are wrong, all attempts to destroy the lives of members of a human group by means of social policies are wrong. That's a separate issue from where science is right now.

Nate Whilk said...

walter said...

It's as if social engineering can have unintended consequences..
10/9/17, 11:20 AM


Is it impossible that some of those "unintended" consequences actually are intended?

The issue is never the issue. The goal is power.