Diversity

[scooter]

It really does depend on definition.

So, here I am at Diversity U-- Temple literally calls itself that. When I am at a meeting, however, and its implied that sexual/affectional orientation is not part of said diversity, and that's why we can't have a GLBT center, I freak (yea, I may be asking for some... assistance in dealing with these beurocrats).

So much for diversity there....

BTW: Article in this month's Atlantic Monthly on this very topic, and the fact that it really, ulitmately, isn't what people want...

S

[boredguy8]

Why do we want diversity? Is it good in itself or good for instrumental reasons? Does it assume a picture of culture that we know to be the case, or merely one that is at present fashionable?

I imagine the normal pop defense of "diversity as good" runs along this line: Diversity provides a variety of experiences in the University which enriches the dialogue. Now one could be nasty and point out that this is circular. . . diversity is good because it provides for diversity. . . but let us assume there is a non-circular way of saying this. . . that new ideas (important ones) or ways of thinking will be brought to the table. In this case, we are free to ask for the evidence of this. . . would having persons from rural Appalachia provide new ideas or ways of thinking worth studying in a University where time is precious and most students have not mastered much of science, math, and literature? Will math be better math if we are diverse? What will be better? Will more students master Shakespeare or Locke? Doesn't this quest for diversity assume that certain kinds of experience are relevant to (say) the study of Dante ? Is there really a white, male view of a text? Isn't that buying into a philosophy that may indeed be true without examining its roots or where it leads?

The second defense is usually that diversity provides role models. This is an odd notion. Doesn't it encourage the sort of "racial"/ethnic/sexual thinking we are supposed to avoid? If my study of Plato is impeded by a female advisor, don't I have a problem? Should I worry that no one in my field has my ethnic background (to pick an extreme case), if ethnic background is not relevant to the study of my field? Perhaps, I should be encouraged by my advisors to lose these categories in thinking about my discipline? Are we falling into the trap of the foolish reporter who asked Doug Williams what it felt like to be the first black quarterback to start the Super Bowl? Would Williams have performed better with more role models? Or not?

We are brought to the view of American culture often assumed (but not argued for) by some people when discussing diversity. . . that America is so racist/ethno-centric/sexist that there is an assumption that such things are pervasive without positive evidence for it. The question: is this view of our culture correct?

Now none of these are meant to be conclusive arguments. . . however, if one asks hard (Socratic?) questions about diversity one is inundated with stories (real ones) about harm done by wicked people. Yet. . . wickedness is wicked. . . and can be punished without a recourse to diversity as an end.

What is the evidence that the quest for diversity (as a goal) in fact produces, well, more integrated university culture? What is to keep students from becoming more ever more racial/sexual/ethnic. . . in fact functionally segregating? Do the UCs really provide us with a model that is encouraging in this regard?

Let me state plainly: bigotry is wrong. One should not exclude any applicant for a position (including a University one) that is is merit based for reasons having nothing to do with relevant merit.

Perhaps, our goal should be to reach out to as many students as we can. We have no shortage of such students. . .nor do we anticipate one in the near future. No one should fear diversity. . . but why (exactly) should it be a goal?

One thing we should be careful to express. . . that sometimes motivates such discussion. . . is the pain of persons who have been treated badly because of racism/sexism/ethnocentrism. No one wants to minimize that pain. . . or the block to real advance such evil has caused many. . . the question is how to fight the evil. Is diversity the reverse of racism? No. Not being a racist is the reverse of racism. . . and might not lead to diversity for many reasons unrelated to race. We should also be careful to repudiate those who hide their evil views behind the cloak of opposition to diversity/pc language.

I probably should get back to writing about Plato. . . so this shall be my last. . . on this friendly note. . .

I do think no person should care about the color of his professors skin, or her gender, or her ethnic background. I think we should judge students and professors worth by their skill in their chosen profession and the content of their character!

I would gladly attend a discussion group (if they would have me) with Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, Elizabeth Eliot, and Deborah Modrak. I would not feel short changed by the lack of diversity in a room of such brilliance.

--One of my professors

I'm interested in all-y'all's take on this.

[boredguy8]

Originally posted by tutakai
I selected "other". You need an option for "diversity is...undefined."

Indeed, that is the biggest problem. "Diversity" is interpreted differently by different people.

I do. It's under "other". I hope no one feels oppressed checking that box.

Here, I think the author is talking about socioeconomic diversity.

--Joey

[AhhAlegra]

If I expressed a personal (not political) concern to the effect of me feeling a bit uncomfortable being the only Latino in my discipline, and my advisor told me that I didn't have any grounds to feel like that, and that I should "lose those categories" in my thinking...I'd get a new advisor. Way to be compassionate.

Because that is a real feeling, although maybe not one that warrants political action. It isn't fun to look around a big room and realize that you are the outsider because of your (age, ethnicity, disability), etc. It's a feeling of personal unease..and then kind of a weird wondering of what happened to all the other people in the country who are like you in that aspect...where are they right now? I'm not making an argument for any particular policy remedy. I just don't want you to write off that experience.

Math may not be better if the students are more diverse, but a wider range of students who previously didn't have access to math of that level or quality are getting better. That's a justification to me.
As for a more subjective field like literature, art, even political science- You bet the field will benefit from a more diverse pool of people doing the analysis and interpretation of texts and works and documents. I guarantee you the English department faculty at UCLA, "diverse" in almost any way you cut it, has a broader range of textual analyses and re-imaginings than the faculty at a state school elsewhere in the country where the professors and students are relatively homogeneous. They also bring with them the opinion that students of literature should study other authors in addition to Shakespeare and Locke who have historically deemed unworthy of the canon. If you doubt that there has ever been a "white male view of a text" I advise you to look into the well documented textbook biases in fields as diverse as history and health, where textbooks written from a very particular bias have been the authoritative source in classrooms for most of our history.

The reason this is a hot-button issue at public universities is that they were chartered to serve all the students of that given state, subject to a few criteria...if their campuses are routinely devoid of students of a certain ethnicity, age group, socioeconomic level, disability, what have you, that is present in the state, they are failing in their mission and can be held liable for it. Private universities can do whatever they damn well please- take only the students with really high grades and test scores, if they want, or the professors with the most articles published. Interestingly enough, most elite universities still employ affirmative action policies of some sort. Why do you think that is? (Not a rhetorical question, I wonder myself.)

[AhhAlegra]

OH THANK GOD!!! I've been trying to post that damn thing all yesterday and it wouldn't let me, to the point where I don't even like what I said anymore. Stupid Net Benefits!!

[Samopolis]

If I expressed a personal (not political) concern to the effect of me feeling a bit uncomfortable being the only Latino in my discipline, and my advisor told me that I didn't have any grounds to feel like that, and that I should "lose those categories" in my thinking...I'd get a new advisor. Way to be compassionate.

I agree. Why do so many folks (usually white, usually liberal) react on this subject by simply pretending that race doesn't exist? I wouldn't want to live in a colorblind world, even if that were possible.

[syphos]

Originally posted by AhhAlegra

As for a more subjective field like literature, art, even political science- You bet the field will benefit from a more diverse pool of people doing the analysis and interpretation of texts and works and documents. I guarantee you the English department faculty at UCLA, "diverse" in almost any way you cut it, has a broader range of textual analyses and re-imaginings than the faculty at a state school elsewhere in the country where the professors and students are relatively homogeneous. They also bring with them the opinion that students of literature should study other authors in addition to Shakespeare and Locke who have historically deemed unworthy of the canon. If you doubt that there has ever been a "white male view of a text" I advise you to look into the well documented textbook biases in fields as diverse as history and health, where textbooks written from a very particular bias have been the authoritative source in classrooms for most of our history.

I think Ward Churchill's essay "White Studies: The Intellectual Imperialism of US Higher Education" (From the book From a Native Son: Selected Essays in Indigenism, 1985-1995 does a very adequate job of arguing the need for diversity in topics such as philosophy, which is usually dominated by the eurocentric(read: white) greats, or when it tries to be inclusive, it does a just a very superficial job of it.

However, Churchill sees the problem as a Western dogma to departmentalize (or classify) knowledge into neat little categories, while some non-western experiences is more apt to take things at a more interconnected manner. Perhaps diversity in frameworks amongst people would be more conducive to experiences different world views, though it doesn't escape the problems Churchill sees as inherent in the University system.

A short but good read IMO.

[thedancingbear]

Originally posted by Samopolis


I agree. Why do so many folks (usually white, usually liberal) react on this subject by simply pretending that race doesn't exist? I wouldn't want to live in a colorblind world, even if that were possible.

Um, you can't simultaneously get mad at us for thinking you are the benefactor of white privilege and also accuse us of denying race exists.

"Conservativism As Hypo-Testing" by Sam. "Whatever it is you think, you're wrong, and I'm not that thing."

IS

[AhhAlegra]

Theoretically I agree with you, although I shudder to think how we might define terms like culture and ideology, or how we might try to practically populate our student bodies using that method. I guess nothing's perfect anyway. And how do you see the interplay between ethnicity and culture? I realize that's a book-length question, but just roughly.
(And also Jason, you notice I usually include age as a factor in diversity, just so I don't get my butt kicked by you )

Doesn't anyone want to quote a trendy philosopher on this thread, or anything?

[syphos]

Originally posted by AhhAlegra

Doesn't anyone want to quote a trendy philosopher on this thread, or anything?

Does my paraphrasing of Churchill not count?

[boredguy8]

Scooter: Do you know the title of that article?

Jed: Why is scooter's post in front of the one that started this thread?

Originally posted by AhhAlegra
As for a more subjective field like literature, art, even political science- You bet the field will benefit from a more diverse pool of people doing the analysis and interpretation of texts and works and documents.

But why is this *better*? This sounds like the "diversity is good because it produces diversity" position already discounted. So how will the field benefit?

--Joey

Edit: I think I found it. Was it the "People Like Us" article? A few selections:

"People Like Us" Atlantic Monthly; Sep2003, Vol. 292 Issue 2, p29

It's striking that the institutions that talk the most about diversity often practice it the least. For example, no group of people sings the diversity anthem more frequently and fervently than administrators at just such elite universities. But elite universities are amazingly undiverse in their values, politics, and mores. Professors in particular are drawn from a rather narrow segment of the population. If faculties reflected the general population, 32 percent of professors would be registered Democrats and 31 percent would be registered Republicans. Forty percent would be evangelical Christians. But a recent study of several universities by the conservative Center for the Study of Popular Culture and the American Enterprise Institute found that roughly 90 percent of those professors in the arts and sciences who had registered with a political party had registered Democratic. Fifty-seven professors at Brown were found on the voter registration rolls. Of those, fifty-four were Democrats. Of the forty-two professors in the English, history, sociology, and political-science departments, all were Democrats. The results at Harvard, Penn State, Maryland, and the University of California at Santa Barbara were similar to the results at Brown.

What we are looking at here is human nature. People want to be around others who are roughly like themselves. That's called community. It probably would be psychologically difficult for most Brown professors to share an office with someone who was pro-life, a member of the National Rifle Association, or an evangelical Christian. It's likely that hiring committees would subtly--even unconsciously--screen out any such people they encountered. Republicans and evangelical Christians have sense that they are not welcome at places like Brown, so they don't even consider working there. In fact, any registered Republican who contemplates a career in academia these days is both a hero and a fool.

...

The dream of diversity is like the dream of equality. Both are based on ideals we celebrate even as we undermine them daily. (How many times have you seen someone renounce a high-paying job or pull his child from an elite college on the grounds that these things are bad for equality?) On the one hand, the situation is appalling. It is appalling that Americans know so little about one another. It is appalling that many of us are so narrow-minded that we can't tolerate a few people with ideas significantly different from our own. It's appalling that evangelical Christians are practically absent from entire professions, such as academia, the media, and filmmaking. It's appalling that people should be content to cut themselves off from everyone unlike themselves.

...

It's probably better to think about diverse lives, not diverse institutions. Human beings, if they are to live well, will have to move through a series of institutions and environments, which may be individually homogeneous but, taken together, will offer diverse experiences. It might also be a good idea to make national service a rite of passage for young people in this country: it would take them out of their narrow neighborhood segment and thrust them in with people unlike themselves. Finally, it's probably important for adults to get out of their own familiar circles. If you live in a coastal, socially liberal neighborhood, maybe you should take out a subscription to The Door, the evangelical humor magazine, or maybe you should visit Branson, Missouri. Maybe you should sop in at a megachurch. Sure, it would be superficial familiarity, but it beats the iron curtains that now separate the nation's various cultural zones.

Look around at your daily life. Are you really in touch with the broad diversity of American life? Do you care?