Under the Skin of Diversity
by M. Royce Van Tassell
December 2001/January 2002
Under the Skin of Diversity
by M. Royce Van Tassell
December 2001/January 2002
On June 28, 2001, Ward Connerly gathered with David Horowitz, Ron Unz, Tamar Jacoby, Gail Heriot and other leading authorities in America’s race dialogue at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library to discuss where the fight against race preferences stands today. More specifically, they wanted to understand exactly what the “diversity” rationale is, why it is so alluring, and how best to respond to it.
Today’s justification du jour for continued race preferences, the “diversity” rationale suggests that in a nation with so much diversity, the government must make sure our colleges and universities have enough black, Latino, Native American and other “underrepresented” minorities. Rather than mooring preferences to their original goals of righting historic discrmination against blacks, the diversity rationale makes preferences a growth industry. As America becomes less homogenous, and as new groups arrive, the state must guarantee these groups a place on college faculties and in freshman classes, even if that means pushing aside less-favored groups.
“Diversity” is an alluring and powerful concept. In today’s political climate, opposing diversity often comes across like opposing motherhood and apple pie. Virtually all Americans can trace their ancestry to an immigrant, and our freedom and prosperity have attracted immigrants from all over the world. The Statue of Liberty captures our emotional connection to this heritage in poet Emma Lazarus’ immortal poem, “The New Colossus.”
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
These words evoke that distinctly American belief that embracing these “huddled masses” will strengthen and enrich each of us individually, and all of us collectively. In our private, individual struggles to succeed economically and socially, we see America’s public struggles to achieve a color-blind, just society. While Great Britain, India and Japan are places, America is a set of shared ideals, a set of ideals perhaps best expressed by our national motto – “E pluribus unum,” out of many, one.
Drawing on these cultural hallmarks, supporters of preferences invoke “diversity” on behalf of government-enforced racial gerry-mandering. In so doing, they distort how we have always understood the variety of American culture. We rejoice privately in America’s array of cultures. In virtually any American town, one restaurant will offer cheeseburgers; a second, sweet and sour pork; and a third, burritos; some restaurants offer all three. Publicly, however, America emphasizes our common heritage. When it comes to public policy, our highest ideals bind us together. Precisely because these ideals are shared, and are so deeply embedded in our individual and collective souls, recalling our nation’s uneven success in living up to those ideals fills us with deep remorse.
Because diversity as used by the “race industry” is so deceptively alluring, Mr. Connerly and the other attendees repeatedly emphasized the importance of explaining what racialist mean by the term. They want government to manufacture or force quota-diversity. Moreover, it was agreed that the only kind of diversity that is desired is skin color diversity. Whether this produces a diversity of though or experience is beside the point. The diversity rationale exists only to extend race-based preferences.
So how do we respond to the diversity rationale? As already noted, we need to explain what these racialists mean by diversity. More importantly, though, we need to change the terms of the debate. The key lies in forcing race advocates to explain why Americans should accept their racialist vision of diversity. Fortunately, some of this has already begun. Americans inundated newspapers and airwaves last year with complaints about Census 2000’s singular focus on race and ethnicity. In a widely cited poll commissioned by the American Civil Rights Institute, more than 4 out of 5 Americans want the government to respect our right to racial privacy. And the “buzz” generated by California’s proposed Racial Privacy Initiative indicates that those sentiments herald a day when race will disappear from the American mind.
For that day to come, Americans need to reexamine and expose the superficial nature of “diversity” and its advocates, and challenge the racialists’ impulse to define our identity as skin-deep. The Reagan Library conference in June was an important step forward in that direction.
M. Royce Van Tassell is Director of Research for the American Civil Rights Institute.
Also by M. Royce Van Tassell
Copyright © 2001 ACRI. All rights reserved.