Diversity Prop by Jonah Goldberg on National Review Online Jonah Goldberg NRO Editor at Large June03,2003,0:15p.m Diversity prop Grace on the cheap By Jonah goldberg L et me just say it up front: My problem isn 't with diversity, it's with propaganda The rest, as they say, is commentary So let's get going with the commentary Diversity isn't an unqualified good. In fact, save for a few pedantic exceptions God. wisdom. etc here are no unqua lified goods. Tolerance is bad if you tolerate e vl. d emocracy is a p roblem if it b ecomes t yrannical, w hich it m ost certainly can. Law can be"a ass "D issent isn't necessarily h eroic. For every Mandela, Gandhi, or Thoreau there are 1, 000-no, 10,000- drooling morons jabbering misfits, and opponents of progress with equal claim to the title"dissenter, dissident, ""protester, rebel, "or non-conformist. "When a group or society is heading in the right direction, the maverick is no hero for telling everyone to turn around. Even Irish whiskey, taken to an extreme, can be a problem Diversity is another of those words we imbue with all nobility and goodness without question or re servation. A nd t hat's nons ense. I f di versity were a lways a nd everywhere good we would be clamoring for more midgets in the NBa. We would demand that mobsters get jobs at the Fbi and we would consider it a grave problem that not enough blind men -and women!- were applying to be crossing guards, snipers, and surgeons Indeed if diversity were always a boon to the educational process, we would decry the g hettos o f b ackwardness we call all-women s co leges an d h istorically b lack universities. After all. are not blacks and women in the most need of educational support? Lee Bollinger, the former pre sident of the U niversity of Michigan(and current president of Columbia University) recently declared
June 03, 2003, 0:15 p.m. Grace on the cheap. By Jonah Goldberg et me just say it up front: My problem isn't with diversity, it's with propaganda. The rest, as they say, is commentary. So let's get going with the commentary. Diversity isn't an unqualified good. In fact, save for a few pedantic exceptions — God, wisdom, etc. — there are no unqualified goods. T olerance is bad if you tolerate e vil. D emocracy is a p roblem if it b ecomes t yrannical, w hich it m ost certainly can . Law can b e "a as s." D issent i sn't n ecessarily h eroic. F or ev ery Mandela, Gandhi, or Thoreau there are 1,000 — no, 10,000 — drooling morons, jabbering misfits, and opponents of progress with equal claim to the title "dissenter," "dissident," "protester," "rebel," or "non-conformist." When a group or society is heading in the right direction, the maverick is no hero for telling everyone to turn around. Even Irish whiskey, taken to an extreme, can be a problem. Diversity is another of those words we imbue with all nobility and goodness without question or re servation. A nd t hat's nons ense. I f di versity w ere a lways a nd everywhere good we would be clamoring for more midgets in the NBA. We would demand that mobsters get jobs at the FBI and we would consider it a grave problem that not enough blind men — and women! — were applying to be crossing guards, snipers, and surgeons. Indeed, if diversity were always a boon to the educational process, we would decry the ghettos o f b ackwardness we call all-women's co lleges an d h istorically b lack universities. After all, are not blacks and women in the most need of educational support? Lee Bollinger, the former president of the University of Michigan (and current president of Columbia University) recently declared: Diversity Prop by Jonah Goldberg on National Review Online 1 of 5
Diversity Prop by Jonah Goldberg on National Review Online Diversity is not merely a desirable ad dition to a well-run education. It is as essential as the study of the Middle Ages, of international politics and of Shakespeare. For our students to better understand the diverse country and world they inhabit, they must be immersed in a campus culture that allows them to study with, argue with and become friends with students who may be different from them. It broadens the mind and the intellect-essential goals of education Well, if it's an essential goal of education, let's diversify morehouse College right now be fore one m ore bl ack k id is forc ed to s tudy w ithout t he be nefit of experiencing the glories of sharing a dorm with a few Asian and white kids. And since it's an established fact that blacks are more educationally disadvantaged than most, doesn't that mean that integrating black schools is even more of an imperative than getting a few more African Americans at Harvard? Many of our greatest scientists, statesmen, soldiers, and artists attended remarkably un-diverse institutions. Indeed, many of our greatest black leaders attended all black, and often all black male, institutions of higher learning. And yet, if I were to say that a black man can't be properly educated unless some of whitey rubs off on him, I'd get in a lot of trouble But that's the diversity argument in a nutshell. the old argument about redressing past wrongs against historically disadvantaged people has been defenestrated. It's not about helping black people by giving them a little extra consideration any more it's now a bout he ping w hite pe ople, by "exposing"them to m inorities. The evidence, anecdotal and scientific, that such e xposure is indisputably be neficial simply does not exist. In fact, an important new study just published in The Public Interest suggests just the opposite in many significant respects At least the old idea, equally flawed and well-intentioned, worked on the premise that a ffirmative action would be a temporary e ffort, a imed at fixing a s pecific problem and moving on once fixed. But diversity is forever. It's a permanent regime of race-based policies with an internal logic that remains just as valid 100 years from Now there are those who will argue that diversity efforts run counter to America's long-standing commitment to merit. I agree with the idea that d iversity programs conflict with the idea of merit, but I don't think the meritocracy is as old as many people think it is Sure, the ideal of a meritocracy- Jefferson's aristocracy of talent and all that-is very old, but America fell short of it for a long time. Not long ago
Diversity is not merely a desirable addition to a well-run education. It is as essential as the study of the Middle Ages, of international politics and of Shakespeare. For our students to better understand the diverse country and world they inhabit, they must be immersed in a campus culture that allows them to study with, argue with and become friends with students who may be different from them. It broadens the mind and the intellect — essential goals of education. Well, if it's an essential goal of education, let's diversify Morehouse College right now be fore one m ore bl ack k id i s forc ed t o s tudy w ithout t he be nefit of experiencing the glories of sharing a dorm with a few Asian and white kids. And since it's an established fact that blacks are more educationally disadvantaged than most, doesn't that mean that integrating black schools is even more of an imperative than getting a few more African Americans at Harvard? Many of our greatest scientists, statesmen, soldiers, and artists attended remarkably un-diverse institutions. Indeed, many of our greatest black leaders attended all black, and often all black male, institutions of higher learning. And yet, if I were to say that a black man can't be properly educated unless some of whitey rubs off on him, I'd get in a lot of trouble. But that's the diversity argument in a nutshell. The old argument about redressing past wrongs against historically disadvantaged people has been defenestrated. It's not about helping black people by giving them a little extra consideration any more — it's now a bout he lping w hite pe ople, by " exposing" t hem t o m inorities. T he evidence, a necdotal a nd scientific, t hat such e xposure is indisputably be neficial simply does not exist. In fact, an important new study just published in The Public Interest suggests just the opposite in many significant respects. At least the old idea, equally flawed and well-intentioned, worked on the premise that affirmative a ction would be a t emporary effort, aimed a t fixing a specific problem and moving on once fixed. But diversity is forever. It's a permanent regime of race-based policies with an internal logic that remains just as valid 100 years from now. Now there are those who will argue that diversity efforts run counter to America's long-standing commitment to merit. I agree with the idea that diversity programs conflict with the idea of merit, but I don't think the meritocracy is as old as many people think it is. Sure, the ideal of a meritocracy — Jefferson's aristocracy of talent and all that — is very old, but America fell short of it for a long time. Not long ago Diversity Prop by Jonah Goldberg on National Review Online 2 of 5
Diversity Prop by Jonah Goldberg on National Review Online many of the nation's top colleges and grad schools used quotas to keep Jews out Harvard fa mously de cided it had too m any"J ews and implemented a" silent quota. "Until Lionel Trilling, Columbia never even had a tenured Jewish professor When four out of five winners of N.Y. Regents scholarships were Jewish, notes historian d avid brion d avis. m ost n ew y ork m edical s chools ha d a s trict anti-Jewish quota- in the name of diversity. The dean of Columbia University's medical school de fended his school's quota by arguing, "The racial and religious makeup in medicine ought to be kept fairly parallel with the population makeup Nobody c an re asonably di spute t hat t here w as a n ol d boy ne twork w hich discriminated not only against Jews, blacks, and what few Asians there were around and, of course, against women- but against middle-class ethnic whites as well What people forget is that the Sat and a host of other measures were created in the 1950s and 1960s in order to dismantle the old boy network to give the poor and socially disadvantaged a chance to compete with the sons and daughters of privilege And it w as r emarkably s uccessful on th at s core. a merica's el ite co lleges an d universities became vastly more integrated -ideologically, socially, and racially because A merica m ade the de cision to live up to the m eritocratic ideal (the marketplace and the g.I. bill probably had a lot to do with it, too). The average IQ at e lite U. S. schools s oared as the dul ler children of privilege were forc ed to compete w ith middle-class Jews, C atholics, and b lacks in ways they never had before. But there were costs. Higher education became much more of a national job-training program and less of an incubator of virtue and good citizenship. Local communities lost some of their best and brightest to the big cities because, for the first time, their best and brightest had an opportunity to compete there on a fair level. And, yes the self-esteem of some groups suffered as fair chances failed to yield"fair"results And just as the meritocracy had costs, so does diversity. In fact, it would have costs even if mi nority ap plicants h ad i dentical acad emic r ecords an d sat scores indistinguishable from t he g eneral pool of s tudents be cause t he c oncept of proportional re presentation is ul timately arbitrary w hen set a gainst the riot of desires, aspirations, abilities, and attitudes of the college-bound population. Children of Asian immigrants may disproportionately want to become engineers and doctors while Jews may cluster around, say, law or journalism. blacks may be more inclined toward education or business Whatever. The point isn't to play pin the stereotypical career on the ethnicity. TI point is that to say that any given room must have at least X percent of blacks, Y
many of the nation's top colleges and grad schools used quotas to keep Jews out. Harvard fa mously de cided it ha d " too m any" J ews a nd implemented a " silent quota." Until Lionel Trilling, Columbia never even had a tenured Jewish professor. When four out of five winners of N.Y. Regents scholarships were Jewish, notes historian D avid Bri on D avis, m ost N ew Y ork m edical s chools ha d a s trict anti-Jewish quota — in the name of diversity. The dean of Columbia University's medical school defended his school's quota by arguing, "The racial and religious makeup in medicine ought to be kept fairly parallel with the population makeup." Nobody c an re asonably di spute t hat t here w as a n ol d boy ne twork w hich discriminated not only against Jews, blacks, and what few Asians there were around — and, of course, against women — but against middle-class ethnic whites as well. What people forget is that the SAT and a host of other measures were created in the 1950s and 1960s in order to dismantle the old boy network, to give the poor and socially disadvantaged a chance to compete with the sons and daughters of privilege. And i t w as r emarkably s uccessful o n th at s core. A merica's el ite co lleges an d universities became vastly more integrated — ideologically, socially, and racially — because A merica m ade t he de cision t o l ive up t o t he m eritocratic i deal (t he marketplace and the G.I. bill probably had a lot to do with it, too). The average IQ at e lite U .S. schools s oared a s t he duller c hildren of privilege were forc ed t o compete with middle-class J ews, C atholics, an d b lacks in ways th ey n ever h ad before. But there were costs. Higher education became much more of a national job-training program and less of an incubator of virtue and good citizenship. Local communities lost some of their best and brightest to the big cities because, for the first time, their best and brightest had an opportunity to compete there on a fair level. And, yes, the self-esteem of some groups suffered as fair chances failed to yield "fair" results. And just as the meritocracy had costs, so does diversity. In fact, it would have costs even i f mi nority ap plicants h ad i dentical acad emic r ecords an d S AT s cores indistinguishable from t he g eneral pool of s tudents be cause t he c oncept of proportional re presentation i s ul timately a rbitrary w hen s et a gainst t he ri ot of desires, aspirations, abilities, and attitudes of the college-bound population. Children of Asian immigrants may disproportionately want to become engineers and doctors while Jews may cluster around, say, law or journalism. Blacks may be more inclined toward education or business. Whatever. The point isn't to play pin the stereotypical career on the ethnicity. The point is that to say that any given room must have at least X percent of blacks, Y Diversity Prop by Jonah Goldberg on National Review Online 3 of 5
Diversity prop by jonah goldberg on National review Online percent of Asians and z percent of whites- simply because that's their distribution in t his s prawling c ontinental n ation- is to im pose a n e ntirely id eological theoretical and inherently arbitrary system on a discrete phe nomena. Why not simply pick the c losing a verage of the dow jones to use as the basis for such numerical games? invariably as the num ber of asian americans in a class or a school approaches their"natural "distribution Asians would be judged more strictly viS-a-vis the standards applied to Arab Americans(or whomever) BACK TO THE PROPAGANDA This isn't to say that I'm a gainst di versity, t hough ra cial di versity s eems less important than social diversity(they overlap but aren,t the same thing ). If the choice is between an abstract black and an abstract white and they are for all intents and purposes otherwise indistinguishable, I'm not going freak out if the black kid catches a break even if it that violates the principle of colorblindedness but I'd be even more in favor of a poor white kid from Oklahoma catching a break at the expense of a black dentist's kid But what I cannot stand is the propagandistic notion that this is all cost-free or that diversity is merely replacing another form of prejudice. James M. McPherson of Princeton University recently argued that affirmative action is justifiable because he benefited from the"old boy network "Such arguments disgust me because A)Who cares? and b)T hey make no sense ex cept as p olitical theater. If McPherson admitted at the end of his career that he got his first job through bribery or fraud, would he say that justifies affirmative action? After all, he's not defending the old boy ne twork, he's de nouncing it Second, McPherson seems to ha ve a nointed himself a representative of white people, and therefore any white who gets the shaft today shouldn't complain because McPherson got his unfair break already. What this leaves out is that diversity didn't re place the old boy network, it replaced a system based on merit- quota defenders always leave that part out. And, besides, the old boy ne twork screwed whites too. Middle-class whites are be ing told to accept a new system that discriminates against them even though the old system did too. Third, this is all very easy for McPherson to say. He sounds like a hero only after his distinguished career is winding down. What sacrifices will he make? Such grace on the cheap is a hallmark of liberal defenses of affirmative action these days. So is denial. David Broder's April 6 column could not be a more pristine example of both. After a long love letter to everything he's gained from diversity Broder sums up by recounting Justice S calia's exchange from the bench with the University of Michigans lawyer. Broder writes
percent of Asians and Z percent of whites — simply because that's their distribution, in t his s prawling c ontinental n ation — is t o im pose a n e ntirely id eological, theoretical a nd inherently a rbitrary s ystem on a discrete phe nomena. W hy not simply pick the closing average of the D ow J ones to use as the basis for such numerical games? Invariably, as the number of Asian Americans in a class or a school approaches their "natural" distribution Asians would be judged more strictly vis-à-vis the standards applied to Arab Americans (or whomever). BACK TO THE PROPAGANDA This i sn't t o s ay t hat I 'm a gainst di versity, t hough ra cial di versity s eems l ess important than social diversity (they overlap but aren't the same thing). If the choice is between an abstract black and an abstract white and they are for all intents and purposes otherwise indistinguishable, I'm not going freak out if the black kid catches a break, even if it that violates the principle of colorblindedness. But, I'd be even more in favor of a poor white kid from Oklahoma catching a break at the expense of a black dentist's kid. But what I cannot stand is the propagandistic notion that this is all cost-free or that diversity is merely replacing another form of prejudice. James M. McPherson of Princeton University recently argued that affirmative action is justifiable because he benefited from the "old boy network." Such arguments disgust me because A) Who cares? an d B ) T hey mak e n o s ense ex cept as p olitical th eater. I f M cPherson admitted at the end of his career that he got his first job through bribery or fraud, would he say that justifies affirmative action? After all, he's not defending the old boy ne twork, he 's de nouncing it. S econd, M cPherson s eems t o ha ve a nointed himself a representative of white people, and therefore any white who gets the shaft today shouldn't complain because McPherson got his unfair break already. What this leaves out is that diversity didn't replace the old boy network, it replaced a system based on merit — quota defenders always leave that part out. And, besides, the old boy network screwed whites too. M iddle-class whites are being told to accept a new system that discriminates against them even though the old system did too. Third, this is all very easy for McPherson to say. He sounds like a hero only after his distinguished career is winding down. What sacrifices will he make? Such grace on the cheap is a hallmark of liberal defenses of affirmative action these days. So is denial. David Broder's April 6 column could not be a more pristine example of both. After a long love letter to everything he's gained from diversity, Broder sums up by recounting Justice Scalia's exchange from the bench with the University of Michigan's lawyer. Broder writes: Diversity Prop by Jonah Goldberg on National Review Online 4 of 5
Diversity Prop by Jonah Goldberg on National Review Online If diversity is so important to you, Scal ia told the university's lawyer, lower our standards to the point that more minority applicants can qualify. Not only is that derogatory in its implications, b ut it is st rikingly in appropriate from anyone who purports to believe in pure meritocracy. Today neither Michigan nor The post lowers its standards to admit minorities. They look for minorities within the large pool of qualified applicants Lower the st andards? And d eprive this country of the quality that a great university(or, if I may say so, a great newspaper)can contribute? That is a contemptible alternative That may be true of the post, i don ' t have enough information to say but we know for a fact it is not true of the University of Michigan, where black applicants have a roughly 20-percent advantage over whites. Broder is a smart guy, but you can't help but get the sense that he's deliberately refusing to think or to think out loud about what he's saying, so as to stay on the good side of his diverse newsroom Compare this to Jeffrey Rosen s astoundingly honest- given the forum(The New York Times Magazine) and his job as a profe ssor appraisal of the costs o diversity and the pot ential c osts of getting rid of it. rosen be lieves that the deological imperatives of diversity are so strong that if we get rid of quot as universities will simply find another way to lower standards. I think he's probably right, though I also suspect that the marketplace would find new ways to"price"the degrees of schools which lower their standards. Then again: Harvard's price seems immune to de flation. )As Andrew Sullivan notes, Rosen seems to work on the assumption that blacks will never be able to compete fairly and so he thinks quotas are the least-damaging way to pursue a noble end, since our leading universities are more smitten to racial diversity than they are to academic excellence. It's a deeply depressing argument when you think about it, but at least it's honest about the costs of diversity. And even a bad diagnosis is refreshing if all you've heard are dishonest good ones Jonah goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of meaning. C 2009 Tribune Media services, Inc
If diversity is so important to you, Scalia told the university's lawyer, lower your standards to the point that more minority applicants can qualify. Not only is t hat d erogatory in it s implications, b ut it is st rikingly in appropriate from anyone who purports to believe in pure meritocracy. Today neither Michigan nor The Post lowers its standards to admit minorities. They look for minorities within the large pool of qualified applicants. Lower t he st andards? An d d eprive t his country of the quality that a great university (or, if I may say so, a great newspaper) can contribute? That is a contemptible alternative. That may be true of the Post, I don't have enough information to say. But we know for a fact it is not true of the University of Michigan, where black applicants have a roughly 20-percent advantage over whites. Broder is a smart guy, but you can't help but get the sense that he's deliberately refusing to think — or to think out loud — about what he's saying, so as to stay on the good side of his diverse newsroom. Compare this to Jeffrey Rosen's astoundingly honest — given the forum(The New York Times Magazine) and his job as a professor — appraisal of the costs of diversity a nd t he pot ential c osts of g etting ri d of i t. Ros en be lieves t hat t he ideological imperatives of diversity a re s o s trong t hat if we get rid of quot as, universities will simply find another way to lower standards. I think he's probably right, though I also suspect that the marketplace would find new ways to "price" the degrees of schools which lower their standards. (Then again: Harvard's price seems immune to deflation.) As Andrew S ullivan notes, Rosen seems to work on the assumption that blacks will never be able to compete fairly and so he thinks quotas are the least-damaging way to pursue a noble end, since our leading universities are more smitten to racial diversity than they are to academic excellence. It's a deeply depressing argument when you think about it, but at least it's honest about the costs of diversity. And even a bad diagnosis is refreshing if all you've heard are dishonest good ones. — Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. © 2009 Tribune Media Services, Inc. Diversity Prop by Jonah Goldberg on National Review Online 5 of 5
