The Racism of "Diversity"

Anti-Subversion, Inc. ^ | March 24, 2003 | Peter Schwartz

[Lando Lincoln]

THE RACISM OF "DIVERSITY"

The Supreme Court should recognize that "diversity" entails the same premises as racism -- that race determines one's ideas and that ethnic bloodline is the source of an individual's value.

By Peter Schwartz

The Supreme Court will soon hear oral arguments in the University of Michigan "diversity" case. The two sides disagree largely over whether or not "diversity" provides benefits compelling enough to justify using race as a criterion for admission to college. The Court, however, should come to a more discerning conclusion. What America urgently needs is a ruling that recognizes "diversity" for what it is: a malignant policy that harms everyone, because it is the very essence of racism.

Unlike the policy of racial integration, "diversity" propagates all the evils inherent in racism. According to its proponents, we need "diversity" in order to be exposed to new perspectives on life. We supposedly gain "enrichment from the differences in viewpoint of minorities," as the *MIT Faculty Newsletter* puts it. Admissions should be based on race, the University of Michigan's vice president insists, because "learning in a diverse environment benefits all students, minority and majority alike."

These circumlocutions translate simply into this: one's race determines the content of one's mind. They imply that people have worthwhile views to express because of their ethnicity, and that "diversity" enables us to encounter "black ideas," "Hispanic ideas," etc. What could be more repulsively racist than that? This is exactly the premise held by the South's slave-owners and by the Nazis' Storm Troopers. They too believed that an individual's thoughts and actions are determined by his racial heritage.

Whether a given race receives special rewards or special punishments is immaterial. The core of racism is the notion that the individual is meaningless and that membership in the collective -- the race -- is the source of his identity and value. To the racist, the individual's moral and intellectual character is the product, not of his own choices, but of the genes he shares with all others of his race. To the racist, the particular members of a given race are interchangeable.

The advocates of "diversity" similarly believe that colleges must admit not individuals, but "representatives" of various races. These advocates believe that those representatives have certain ideas innately imprinted on their minds, and that giving preferences to minority races creates a "diversity" of viewpoints on campus. This is the quota-mentality, which holds that in judging someone, the salient fact is the racial collective to which he belongs.

This philosophy is why racial division is *growing* at our colleges. The segregated dormitories, the segregated cafeterias, the segregated fraternities -- these all exist, not in spite of the commitment to "diversity," but because of it. The overriding message of "diversity," transmitted by the policies of a school's administration and by the teachings of a school's professors, is that the individual is defined by his race. It is no surprise, then, that many students associate only with members of their own race and regard others as belonging to an alien tribe.

If racism is to be repudiated, it is the premise of individualism, including individual free will, that must be upheld. There is no way to bring about racial integration except by completely disregarding color. There is no benefit in being exposed to the thoughts of a black person as opposed to a white person; there is a benefit only in interacting with individuals, of *any* race, who have rational viewpoints to offer.

"Diversity," in any realm, has no value in and of itself. Investors can be urged to diversify their holdings -- but for the sake of minimizing their financial risk, not for the sake of "diversity" as such. To maintain that "diversity" per se is desirable -- that "too much" of one thing is objectionable -- is ludicrous. Do brown-eyed students need to be "diversified" with green-eyed ones? Does one's unimpaired health need to be "diversified" with bouts of illness?

The value of a racially integrated student body or work force lies entirely in the individualism it implies. It implies that the students or workers were chosen objectively, with skin color ignored in favor of the standard of individual merit. But that is *not* what "diversity" advocates want. They sneer at the principle of "color-blindness." They want decisions on college or job applicants to be made exactly as the vilest of racists make them: by bloodline. They insist that whatever is a result of your own choices -- your ideas, your character, your accomplishments -- is to be dismissed, while that which is outside your control -- the accident of skin color -- is to define your life.

It is time for the Supreme Court to identify "diversity" as nothing more than a crude form of racism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Schwartz, editor and contributing author of Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution by Ayn Rand, is chairman of the board of directors of the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, California. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Send comments to reaction@aynrand.org

[Lando Lincoln]

A departure from my usual posts. Had to break away from Iraq for awhile. A good, logical piece, I think.

Lando

[Mears]

Nice post! I just call it the "D"word it's become so overused.

[kcar]

Exactly what is "Diversity" and who authorized it as a legitimate priority in education, above reading, writing, and mathmatics? It sounds like recognition of biological collectives over the real diversity that respectfully occurs when people are individually free. Maybe the diversity programs should be referred to as biological collective presumptions and grudges that persist and are harbored by vote-gatherers for a very long time, while they think of other ideas that might actually qualify as ideas?

[MIgramma]

One could only wish!
President Bush did mention the "soft rascism" (or something like that) of low expectations. It seems to me that is relevent here.
To automatically grant someone special priviledges because of their race or sex is to scream that they are incompetant to achieve on their own.

[hollywood]

What school of ideas or specific thoughts can be attributed to just one race? If someone could prove that one race is the only race that can solve x, and that another race is the only race that can solve y, then there may be a case for diversity. However, since problem solvers come from all races, no one can say that diversity of thought and ideas is needed to spread ideas across races.

[hollywood]

My second sentence sounded better in my head than how I typed it. It should read: "However, since x and y have been solved independently by more than one race, no one can say that 'diversity' is needed to spread ideas and thoughts across races." No cross-trainers needed. (Sorry, Nike.)

[Reactionary]

Thanks for posting this.

[Travis McGee]

What be "x"? Who be "y"?

[Texas_Jarhead]

Yes, good piece. Diversity Bookmark

[hollywood]

I figured you would reply in that vein. As always, your ebonics be flawless. However, I'm serious. I would like my abstract logic to be debated by the "agents of change", or in front of the Supreme Court in this case. (At the least, here on FR.) I'm sure the diversity proponents would try to deal more with feelings and cultural differences (food, music, dress, etc.), but that is not what forced diversity is all about: it's the ideas, they always say. Here is an argument against that tenet.

[Varda]

A good piece and he is right on. Racism is the belief that culture is inate. Diversity says that just because someone decends from a different ethnic group; he has a different culture. Enforced racism on campus makes college worse for minorities not better.

[hispanarepublicana]

Bookmarking

[Cosmo]

The supreme court should define diversity as religion, and thusly claim its disseminaion in the public sphere unconstitutional.

[oyez]

Its time to dump the race criteria. Diversity is the movement designed keep the country Balkinized and erase the country of it Eurropean & Judeo-Christian root. (As if we didn't already know that here at FR)

[Wavyhill]

The authors of the Michigan enrollment policy are no different from the Muslim who killed his fellow soldiers with a hand grenade.

[hollywood]

Perhaps x can only be solved by one race, and y only by another. Maybe the diversity proponents know this, but are ashamed to admit it, as it would be the end of the equality mantra. This is not my position; it is just the other side of my logic presented above. My overall point is; prove one side or the other to maintain or eliminate forced diversity.

[hollywood]

BTTT

[hollywood]

BTTT.

[FreeSpeechZone]

bump

[hollywood]

Bumpity-bump.