Diversity, diversity, diversity. In an editorial last week, the Wisconsin State Journal called for an independent audit of campus diversity initiatives. While the publication's editorial board was right about one thing — efforts to increase diversity cost the UW System "tens of millions a year" — it still missed the mark by placing too much value on the left's social engineering ideal.
Really, what is diversity, anyway? At the end of the day, it's little more than a catch-all phrase designed to garner influence and control on campus. The concept has somehow been exempted from a good sifting and winnowing, and many are afraid to question the value of the code word. We've seen this song and dance before.
Over the course of four years here between the lakes, I've witnessed the hand-wringing, indoctrination and rabid multiculturalism from some campus-diversity advocates erode diversity's cheery façade, exposing the buzzword for what it is. When student-funded bureaucracies are pushed aside, when the politically correct rhetoric falls, there lies little more than a naked political ideology, a harmful argument that some people are better or more deserving than others due to the color of their skin. My, how the pendulum has swung.
As we continue to strive for a "color blind" society, logic suggests, race should matter less. However, existing policies and programs like Plan 2008 perpetuate just the opposite. Like it or not, creating a double standard for individuals based on race will not ameliorate racial tensions and divisions.
I want to run into an acquaintance on State Street and know that he went through the same admissions process as everyone else. I don't care if it's one of my Indian friends, my black friends, my white friends or my Hispanic friends. No one deserves the tinge of uncertainty that inevitably follows from a race-based admissions process. It seems more than a few of my peers on campus have forgotten a neat little Martin Luther King Jr. line about emphasizing "the content of their character."
This isn't to say that racism doesn't exist in the United States — it certainly does. The question is whether you can attack this wrong by mirroring a deficiency at the other end of the spectrum. Frankly, I thought it was axiomatic that "two wrongs don't make a right." Apparently, the UW system disagrees.
Depending on whose numbers you use, UW-Madison has a minority population equal to or slightly higher than the comparable percentage of minorities living statewide — hovering in the range of 10 percent. But why do we need to be so concerned about racial numbers? I thought we were trying to break down barriers, not emphasize them. Stooping to the numbers game makes one wonder what ultimately could qualify as "sufficient." A "critical mass" of people, diversity advocates might respond. Well, what is that? It's an unhealthy obsession with skin color in disguise.
Questions also crop up about the overlap in points of affirmative action. Preferential treatment can potentially assist with securing scholarships, college admission, law school admission and job entry. What qualifies as enough?
The same query must be applied to government agencies designed to "foster diversity." On campus alone, Plan 2008, The Multicultural Student Coalition, PEOPLE, Dean of Students Office and POSSE all devote financial resources to diversity. It sounds great. But, considering the amount of resources these groups receive, perhaps their rallying cry of "diversity" ought to have fewer nefarious undertones. Or perhaps the organizations shouldn't get funding to achieve goals that can only be made tangible when people’s skin tones are seen determinant of their worth.
Instead of spending, as the State Journal pointed out, "tens of millions" on futile diversity efforts, why doesn't the System put the funds toward reducing student tuition across the board? Ensuring affordability to all hard-working or talented students regardless of race is a worthwhile goal.
The UW System can do better. Divorce diversity efforts from a concentration on skin color. Focus it on the proper concern of a university environment — diversity of thought, diversity of individuals. Clarifying the overused phrase and redirecting the public concern about it would strengthen our state and our school.
I claim no visionary dream about the red hills of Georgia. Instead, I have a small hope that one day, two students will meet on the sidewalk outside of Brats and diversity won't get in the way.
Brad Vogel ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and journalism.
