Michigan’s Diversity “Problem”
(Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger)
June, 2003

Those who are in favor of the University of Michigan's admission policies, like its gleeful President Mary Sue Coleman, conclude that this Supreme Court ruling is a victory for affirmative action and, more generally, for society.  They suggest that the Court affirmed institutional preferences for minorities which are supposed to promote diversity upon campuses.  News programs displayed video of students celebrating the Supreme Court's decision.

This reaction is puzzling when one considers that, in part, the court ruled very harshly against the University of Michigan, forbidding its point system that favors minorities.  This was a not a minor event.  The University of Michigan was found to have adopted an illegal admissions system, one that uses race as a bonus for incoming undergraduates.  The Court's judgment forces the university to abandon this discriminatory practice.

To call the court's decision a “victory”, as Coleman has, is an overstatement.  Not much will change except for Michigan's illegal admission practices.  Further, with universities across the country geared towards similar campus engineering, the Court’s decision sends a strong shot across their bows, instructing them to be careful.

A Bush Victory

Many liberals who celebrate the court's ruling are also opponents of President Bush (in my experience, they hate him!), whose leadership helped bring this case to the Supreme Court in the first place.  One can argue that this ruling was another victory for President Bush.  As if the difficulties of his presidency have not been enough, he courageously sponsored this legal action on sheer principle, arguing that the admission practices at the University of Michigan are fundamentally wrong and un-American.  The Supreme Court of the United States clearly agrees, if only in part.

Diversity Mania!

In case you haven't noticed, we are living in a trend of diversity mania in education.  Liberals seem to believe it is the glue that holds everything together.  It has some sort of magical power that when channeled properly, like harnessing the power of electricity, will cure all educational and societal issues.  (Don't forget, these days teaching is not so much a matter of fostering knowledge, it's more about wiping away the ills of society.)

Drop in any Education class at a university and you are likely to get an earful about the dramatic importance and power of diversity!

But to liberals expanding diversity is not just the solution for our societal problems, itself contains its own set of problems.  Apparently America is in the midst of a diversity crisis that is eating away at our core values.  Bigotry, hate, institutional racism, glass ceilings are all running rampant.  Intervention (that is, voting Democrat) is needed before it reaches some sort of critical mass!

The liberal solution to this diversity crisis is to sprinkle on a little magic dust, that is, more diversity!  The American diversity crisis will be solved through policies that induce and shape the supply of student diversity on campuses.

But does this create a conundrum?  Does mandating diversity, particularly through racist policies, promote differences among people?  Aren't people then categorized, placed in groupings, then given special treatment? 

A melting pot, they would exclaim, we are no longer.

I'm not sure when the ivory tower thinkers of education latched onto this bandwagon.  But I know they promote it within their own Education training courses.  Of course, the recognition of diversity within a classroom can be a good idea.  It might help teachers work better with students.  But this is where I think liberals have gone wrong; You see, diversity just is.  It exists whether we like it or not.  Diversity is not the creation of some policy, an end in and of itself!

Recognizing diversity is a far cry from creating diversity.  But to campus administrators, it is something that should be molded like clay pottery, built from the ground up.  The University of Michigan already has a diverse student body, but the deep thinkers of the administration need to architect the campus even more.  Shape it!  Meet those diversity objectives!  Of course, the enormous value of this is... Well, you'll just have to attend a university to find out!

I was disappointed the Supreme Court concluded that diversity is some sort of goal or achievement ("a compelling state of interest").  Apparently, they have bought into the 'an end in and of itself' theory.  But perhaps I should be grateful that the Court recognizes we shouldn't ignore its byproducts, such as, oh, say, institutionalized racism.