Two weeks ago, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati upheld the University of Michigan law school’s policy
of considering race for admissions. In a swarm of support statements by University of Michigan leaders, the court was praised for recognizing the importance of diversity in a well-rounded education.
“I am pleased the court recognized that diversity brings educational benefits to all students — minority and majority alike,” said University of Michigan interim President B. Joseph White in one such statement. “We must prepare our students to learn and to lead in the world’s most diverse democracy.”
White and the University of Michigan are absolutely correct, in that diversity does improve the quality of education, and of life in general. It is how the word “diversity” is defined that creates the controversy.
My Webster’s dictionary defines “diversity” as “a point or respect in which things differ.” Of course, if I’m in a classroom and I’m a white American sitting next to a native of Japan, then right there, according to the definition of the word, diversity has occurred. If we just sit there, though, having the color of our skin be the deciding difference, then that is not promoting the ideals of an education enhanced by diversity.
As the definition reads, diversity is all about differences, and it is those differences that strengthen our knowledge. But differences come from experiences. The guiding principle of a diverse campus stems from having individuals with a wide array of experiences.
Just because a student checks a different box on their application form doesn’t mean she has experiences any more valuable then anyone else’s. What makes a diverse education is what students can individually contribute to the community, not what box they check.
The University also has difficulty defining this buzzword. The University prides itself on having one of the greatest international student populations in the country. This is wonderful, and what those students bring to the University falls right in line with the purpose of creating diversity among the population. The problem is that the University thinks the answer to creating diversity is to increase the number of students that check any box other than “white.” Diversity is not something that can be measured through fact sheets or statistical profiles.
We assume that by clumping students of the same race into student groups like the Black Student Union, the Native American Student Union and the Asian-Pacific American Student Union, then somehow diversity occurs. If the University were truly diverse, then these groups wouldn’t exist. We would all be seen as individuals with our individual merits, experiences and contributions.
To be honest, as a middle-class white student who grew up on a cul-de-sac in the Midwest, I can list just as many ways I bring diversity to a campus on the West Coast as anyone else. It is because of the color of my skin, though, that people assume I’m just like everyone else.
If you want to learn something based on my experiences, then you need to talk to me. Staring at my skin isn’t going to get you too far. I know that the same is true for myself. When I leave the University and enter the “real world,” I can’t judge people based on the color of their skin and expect to succeed — unless, of course, I become an admissions officer at the University of Michigan.
E-mail columnist Jeff Oliver at [email protected].
His opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the Emerald.