At Minding the Campus, Roger Clegg dissects “Why U.S. News and World Report Should Include a Diversity Index in its Ranking of Law Schools” and discusses several so-called benefits of diversity.
One of the touted benefits of diversity is that it breaks down stereotypes. Let’s say students at a majority-white school with a race-neutral admissions policy believe blacks and Hispanics are not academically competitive with whites and Asians. To enlighten the poor fool and others like him, a school adopts a race-conscious admissions policy with the goal of admitting more blacks. Being in a classroom with blacks and Hispanics surely will debunk this notion.
Only the disingenuous would argue with a straight face that race-conscious admissions policies don’t entail lowering standards. So, the policy accomplishes the goal: more racial minorities in the classroom. How, exactly, does their presence debunk the intellectually inferior stereotype when said students were admitted under a lower standard of evaluation?
Clegg points out that the focus on race as a benefit perpetuates racial stereotypes. “If it means the stereotype that you can tell a lot about someone’s background, experiences, and perspectives simply by knowing their skin color and national origin, there is again a fatal irony if law schools try to teach this lesson through an admissions process that engages in precisely that stereotyping,” he writes. “I am also skeptical that, in a culture that vilifies racial stereotyping and is at pains to debunk it, the law schools’ intervention for students in their mid-twenties will have much marginal impact. Finally, teaching the rather obvious five-word truth “Blacks don’t all think alike” can be taught just as well, and without engaging in racial discrimination, simply by assigning students to read judicial opinions written by Thurgood Marshall, on the one hand, and Clarence Thomas, on the other.”
Another perceived benefit of diversity is that it generates “livelier and more enlightened classroom discussion.” Anecdotally speaking, I’ve never experienced this. Lively and enlightened discussions ensued from the topic of discussion itself, not whether the classroom was sufficiently diverse.
“What law professors crave is intelligent and well-prepared students, and choosing students on the basis of anything other than how smart and hard-working they are is unlikely to enlighten classroom discussion. There is also no way to predict whether a student, once admitted, will ever raise her hand, or whether what she says will have anything to do with her skin color. And, again, if it is important to admit students who are likely to volunteer unconventional opinions in class, it is completely unclear why we should use skin color and national origin as a proxy for this quality. Finally, while lively classroom discussions can certainly ease the tedium of what is read and, especially, lectured about in law school, let’s be honest: If law students are learning mostly from other law students, then they are not getting their tuition’s worth.”
Assuming something about an individual’s background because he’s black/white/whatever is stereotyping, but stereotyping is okay as long as the traits are positive, not negative. For example, the assumption that black and Hispanic students add a unique perspective to classroom discussions is good stereotyping. Assuming black and Hispanic students will, on average, receive lower test scores in the classroom is bad stereotyping.
The point is that assuming anything about anyone based on his race should have no place in admissions or hiring. That’s why it’s important to have race-neutral objective standards. Race-based admissions and hiring are inherently subjective, even if blacks benefit. A standardized method of evaluating removes race from the equation. Isn’t that a good thing?
Oh, to have the courage to actually live the “content of our character” principle and demand it of our government and our institutions! I’d rather people ignore me altogether than make race-based assumptions about me, positive or negative.
But I’m weird that way.
Comments on this entry are closed.