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 writespercent 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