Posted on 06/30/2003 9:06:36 AM PDT by newgeezer
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The Amendment has been used to demand that no state, organization, or individual can treat citizens differently based on their race.
The U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 5-4, has reaffirmed this interpretation in the University of Michigan case, except in certain situations. The judges, in their wisdom, have discovered that the government has a compelling interest in promoting racial diversity on university campuses that supercedes traditional constitutional interpretations.
Everyone seems to be seeing a victory in this. The University of Michigan claims to be happy because they can still use race in law school admissions. Others see a victory because the procedure the university used selecting undergraduates by race has been deemed to be "unconstitutional."
Actually, the court made a compromise that will keep lawyers happy for decades.
More importantly, in their haste to save "diversity" without appearing to be closet racists, the court had to made "diversity" a legal compelling interest of the nation.
If we believe that education actually has an effect, "diversity" must be seen as the most wonderful and important thing ever to happen to a society. Our children are taught from first grade to graduate school that "diversity" is akin to godliness. "Diversity" is good.
"Diversity" is wonderful. Orwell could have learned something about "good think" if he was still alive.
This brainwashing becomes obvious when a student is asked why "diversity" is good. They give you an expression that would make a cow look intellectual. There is no answer. That someone would ask the question is beyond their comprehension.
Evidently the Supreme Court felt the same way.
"Diversity" has literally become a religious tenet with the American education caste. Look at any advertisement for a university. A person seeing these ads would have to assume that at least three fourths of the university student body is African American and Hispanic. The education caste is so imbued with "diversity" that they don't even seem to notice that these ads are not only obviously false, but that the target market (i.e., future students) could not care less. They are doing ads essentially to themselves.
I've mentioned this before, but we actually had a dean candidate that put this into perspective. When asked why he should be chosen as the new dean, he replied that he "did diversity" better than anyone. Not a word about administrative ability, leadership qualities, resource management, or ability to obtain support, just a statement that he was very good as making the college look politically correct.
This is exactly the problem. It is all smoke and mirrors; it is a virtual reality based on a rather vicious and negative perception of reality. Certain groups can only be advanced if the education caste becomes their "parents," giving them an extra boost. Otherwise, the racists, who are everywhere (except of course in the educational caste elite), will hold them back for reasons that are not quite clear.
Actually, "diversity" is not only highly ideological, and highly visual, it is also rather vacuous. What a university means by "diversity" is selectively limited. It very seldom has much to do with ideas. In fact, many of the most enthusiastic defenders of "diversity" are the most vigorous in defending "proper thought" and the most concerned that students may actually hear "improper thoughts." Look at who is selected to speak at universities, then notice who the protesters are when the wrong speakers are mistakenly asked on campus.
I once sent an application to Vassar explaining that they should hire me because of "diversity." I could guarantee them that their students had never been exposed to a professor like me in their entire lives. They did not acknowledge my application, even though they had advertised the position.
Actually, diversity is a good idea if it was for real. I would like my students to hear a defender of a communist economic system, or a fascist system. I would like to have my students seriously talking to a member of another religion. I think my students should be exposed to the people they will meet in society, such as a despicable, illogical, and mean-spirited boss. Every semester, for the sake of "diversity" a professor must play the part of this SOB so the students will have a broader experience. I could not care less what color the professor is.
Pigs will fly, and the majority of court justices will get a backbone before "diversity" becomes real.
Dennis E. Clayson is a marketing professor at the University of Northern Iowa.
Wow, someone in state-run academia with a seemingly conservative point of view. Will wonders never cease?
Better get a photo of this dinosaur before he goes extinct.
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.