Since the civil rights era, how to account for the gaps in racial achievement has been a fiercely debated issue. The last decade alone has seen students storm campus newspapers and lawyers descend on the Supreme Court during debates over affirmative action. In the meantime, the University of Wisconsin-Madison has pursued a different course. Plan 2008 — 11 months dead — emphasized “educational quality through racial and ethnic diversity,” and its successor, Inclusive Excellence, only differs substantially by making that goal even more vague and difficult to measure.
There may well be some benefit to interacting with people from a variety of heritages, but it is by no means necessary for a quality, balanced education. In high school, one of my classmates, Jose, would perform a traditional Mexican dance every year where he would end up tying a knot with his feet. Was it cool? Hell yeah, and it sure beat class. But did it contribute to my education? Not really.
And that’s not the goal anyway. Our efforts should not be aimed at increasing some ill-defined variety in the classroom. As Lyndon Johnson said, “It is not enough to just open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.” The emphasis of programs such as these should be on providing those disadvantaged by their socioeconomic status with the tools and opportunities needed to succeed. If education is the key to upward mobility, then our recruitment and admissions efforts should focus on groups that need help, not simply those that are underrepresented.
Unfortunately, the rhetoric on campus has frequently strayed from those objectives. Moreover, it distorts the fundamental goals that former President Johnson outlined. In this sense, Plan 2008 was more distraction than failure — Terrell Owens (pre-Buffalo Bills) rather than JaMarcus Russell. Looking back at the goals of the initiative as it was conceived in 1998, it is shocking how the conversation has changed. Instead of building pipelines from the inner city, we’re talking about “inclusive excellence” like this is some thesaurus-ed up kindergarten lesson.
Somehow, programs that were supposed to level the playing field for blacks (and others) who were and are denied some of the most basic opportunities deteriorated into nothing more than a nebulous attempt to recreate the “It’s a Small World” ride at Disneyland.
I am arguing for affirmative action, but only on the grounds of creating opportunity for all those disadvantaged. The differences between the two approaches are small, but they are critical to creating credible, worthwhile action. Initiatives aimed at “increasing representation” — one of the areas proponents say Plan 2008 succeeded — are difficult to defend. Why would some kid need to know how to make Polish sausage the way my grandpa did? Why do people need to be exposed to hip-hop? Should we make sure people are exposed to polka as well? What about bluegrass?
Ensuring cultural awareness is not inherently bad, but it is not good in and of itself either. And once it begins to encroach upon, or even replace, other efforts to provide opportunities to those whose socioeconomic status would otherwise place them at a competitive disadvantage, then it fails to serve the interests of anyone.
Such an approach transforms the overall objectives of education, rather than complimenting them. The end goal of simply increasing the range of experiences present on campus effectively hinders any attempt to create more substantial change. Focusing merely on race/ethnicity and cultural experiences (as the rhetoric has) neglects other factors that are certainly more important than skin color in determining educational opportunity. It has fundamentally changed the conversation from securing the opportunity to succeed for those whose lot in life has made it unlikely to ensuring the administration doesn’t have to Photoshop any more brochures.
Someone who made it through 13 years at a lousy public school in Milwaukee deserves an opportunity, even if the only thing making him diverse is that he’s a Cincinnati Reds fan. Oprah Winfrey’s kids (if she had any) don’t deserve that special consideration, no matter how aware they are of their heritage. Yet, Plan 2008 did not make those distinctions, and neither does Inclusive Excellence.
In the end, plans rooted in aiding underprivileged rather than ones meant to foster diversity would see similar net effects. However, the means are as important as the ends. Giving everyone a level playing field on which to run the race would be far more beneficial than packing the opening ceremony. It doesn’t mean that we have to eschew ideas of heritage and diversity and culture, but it does mean we should get our priorities straight as far as admissions efforts are concerned. And number one should be helping people, regardless of whether they fit someone’s definition of “diverse.”
Joe Labuz ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in biomedical engineering.
