The recent Supreme Court ruling that state universities may use racial preferences in order to obtain a “diverse” student body — provided that they aren’t blatant about it — has met with praise from education leaders in North Carolina.
While the Constitution requires the states to give “equal protection of the laws” to all, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids educational institutions that receive any federal funds from engaging in racial discrimination, the court saw fit to give the University of Michigan law school a pass on its race preferences on the grounds that there were “educational benefits” to be derived from having a diverse student body and a state’s “compelling interest” in attaining those benefits justifies some preferential treatment.
There are strong reasons to doubt that those educational benefits are either real or “compelling” as traditionally defined by the courts. The Supreme Court just took the schools’ word for it that more diversity means more harmony, understanding, etc. Just for the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that diversity does really good things for a university and its students.
We then have to ask why the schools of the University of North Carolina system are doing so little to promote it. UNC and NC State have for years been endeavoring to increase the numbers of black, Hispanic, and American Indian students. Fine, but how do we know that this limited amount of racial and ethnic diversity is enough? Or even the best kind to have?
After all, human beings can be different in many aspects other than race. Consider religion. The predominant religious affiliation in North Carolina is Baptist. Does it contribute more to diversity on campus to add another black student who is Baptist, or to add another white student who is Catholic or Jewish — both denominations with far fewer adherents in the state? If exposure to people with different racial backgrounds is educationally beneficial, wouldn’t exposure to people of different religious convictions be at least as beneficial? Why aren’t our universities working to make sure that they have a reasonable cross-section of the range of religious belief, including agnostics?
What about political views? North Carolinians differ enormously in that regard. Within the state, you’ll find everything from devotees of Ayn Rand to die-hard believers in socialism, with plenty of Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Greens in between. Shouldn’t UNC make sure that there is at least a “critical mass” of students representing all of these? And we know that the universities don’t make any attempt at ideological balance among the faculty members, which is overwhelmingly leftist. Shouldn’t there be “affirmative action” here for conservatives, in order to provide real intellectual diversity?
And which of these diversities is the most beneficial? Does a black Baptist Democrat do more for diversity than a white agnostic Marxist? If we are really going to take diversity seriously, we shouldn’t just assume that racial or ethnic characteristics are necessarily much more potent diversity boosters than are features based on the individual’s thoughts.
I have scratched only the surface of diversity here, though. People are very diverse in their socio-economic backgrounds. Some students come from struggling, single-parent households, while others grew up in households with two parents and no shortage of money. Some students come from families with small businesses, while in others, Mom, Dad, or perhaps both worked for large corporations. Some students come from small, rural towns; others grew up in big cities and their suburbs. Those differences may have a strong impact on a person’s outlook on life. Is UNC trying to ensure that there’s at least a “critical mass” of students from each of the many identifiable socio-economic groups in society? If not, why not?
Do we need to be certain that we have diversity with regard to preferences for sports and fitness vs. couch potatoism? Diversity in musical tastes?Diversity in food preferences?Is diversity enhanced more with the admission of a guy whose lawyer father’s ancestors came from Spain and who likes NASCAR racing, hard- rock music and western Carolina barbecue, or a vegetarian white gal whose single mother taught her to love and play Bach’s cello suites?
Doing diversity looks exceedingly hard. Or is it?
What if universities simply admitted the best-qualified applicants? By “best qualified,” I mean those with the strongest evidence of academic aptitude — the highest SAT scores, grade averages, and academic accomplishments. Those students would no doubt differ markedly in many ways. And those students would be fairly homogeneous in one important respect. They’d all be equally capable of learning the material covered by their professors.
Isn’t that what college is supposed to be about, anyway?