Posted on 11/11/2022 8:07:50 AM PST by karpov
What is diversity, and why is it so good for college students?
That’s one of the questions at the heart of the Supreme Court cases over race-conscious admissions practices at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, and it was asked early and often during the nearly five hours of oral arguments last week.
“I’ve heard the word ‘diversity’ quite a few times, and I don’t have a clue what it means,” Associate Justice Clarence Thomas said to UNC’s lawyer, North Carolina Solicitor General Ryan Park. “I’d like you to give us a specific definition of diversity in the context of the University of North Carolina. And I’d also like you to give us a clear idea of exactly what the educational benefits of diversity at the University of North Carolina could be.”
It was the opening question to Park, and it should have been a softball. The educational benefits of diversity—the idea that all students get a boost from learning alongside classmates of different races—is absolutely central to Carolina’s case. It’s been part of Supreme Court jurisprudence on affirmative action for decades, ever since the controlling opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) affirmed a “compelling state interest” in diversity on campus.
Park’s meandering, multipart answer—touching on rural students, veterans, enhanced creativity, bias reduction, “deepness and richness” in the learning environment, and the statistically stronger performance of racially diverse groups of stockbrokers (!)—exemplified the mushy, everything-to-everyone logic that has made affirmative action such a ripe target for litigants and such a lopsided loser in opinion polls. “We value diversity of all different kinds in all the ways that people differ in our society,” Park said. Look for the conservative opinion to quote that line disapprovingly come June.
(Excerpt) Read more at jamesgmartin.center ...
diversity is a spice, not an ingredient...
Diversity is the opposite of assimilation and unity.
We spent generations taking in immigrants and making if not them, their children Americans. Now we create ghettos to diversify them.
Concordia civium murus urbium.
“Harmony of citizens is the wall of cities.”
Diversity of thought, Unity in action.
Swatza matter vith zat?
Diversity is a means to divide, particularly when it comes to ideas and thoughts. It fails to bring people together because it focuses on the differences of people, not the commonality. It is a tool of the left to impose their will on others while ignoring the very thing that makes America great … competition.
Diversity = Division and failure—Look at what happened to the diverse Austro-Hungarian Empire? Its gone.
Colleges to Asians: Diversity doesn’t apply to you, so please don’t apply to us.
Affirmative action is defined as a set of procedures designed to; eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_action
In simple terms, it is an effort to find differences in opinions rather than similarities which has no effort to it so it can be used to punish if not comparing to those that are the leaders for affirmative action. It is a device to separate people rather than invite comparisons as the people that do the policing have already determined it is there before they get all the facts. And any future acts even close to their determination will also be punished.
wy69
‘Diversity is a strength’ is one of the biggest lies ever told.
That is specifically not part of the definition.
They worked hard enough to totally eliminate that kind of diversity from the ranks of the tenured faculty over the past sixty years or so, why would they scruple at the follow-on goal of purging it from the student body?
No, it never means that.
The perceived, by some, benefits of diversity are value judgements not shared by all. Therefore, the negative impact of forced diversity, which is never discussed, is resentment by some. So how is a perceived advantage granted to a few at the expense of others a good policy let alone one that is antithetical to equal opportunity under the Constitution?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.