The University announced the creation of a Center for the Study of Social Change through President Dave Frohnmayer’s State of the University speech Wednesday — yet another step in the direction of the supposedly noble goal of diversity. The propriety of a public institution promoting politically driven social engineering must be thoughtfully questioned.
The University obviously believes in diversity, which essentially used to go by the title “Golden Rule.” That name worked for several thousand years, though apparently that smacks too much of old-fashioned values for today’s modern activists on the go. The recently proposed center and the recently disclosed numbers of minority students and faculty are enough evidence of the school’s efforts in this field.
The rationale for diversity seems reasonable. More experiences for students means they will have better critical thinking skills to engage throughout the rest of their lives. Learning about other cultures by putting a human face to the issue also adds an appropriate amount of complexity to issues students will need to deal with later in life. So the rationale is fine, but is it the role of a university to promote one such value over other important ideas?
Make no mistake, diversity is a politically driven attempt at social engineering. It promotes respect, a worthwhile cause, while paying only lip service to other important ingredients of character, such as honesty and integrity. The only time you will hear about the virtues of honesty and integrity come in the form of a prohibition against cheating in the Student Conduct Code, while the volume for diversity issues on campus is blaring. Why should a university have the responsibility, even the right, to prioritize your values for you?
The paternalistic nature of this diversity push is a real concern. In Frohnmayer’s State of the University speech, he said, “We are intent on achieving diversity — for the good of our students, for the essential nature of our learning process and for the good of the community.”
That is indeed a very sweet effort, but it is not the role of a public university to indoctrinate its students in any fashion with a concerted effort to draw certain demographics to the community. Even while Frohnmayer is clearly a surpassingly intelligent and thoughtful man, it is not wise to concede that he is smart enough to decide for individual students the social lessons they are to learn. It would seem wiser to have bureaucrats stick to budgets and class curriculum.
Such paternalism can often turn into judging which thoughts are acceptable and which are not. Does anyone think that this school’s version of populist-driven diversity really allows for all points of views to be expressed? A bias-response team was set up to deal with possible inflammatory issues, closely resembling the quick-response teams employed by police agencies. There’s a troubling visible parallel to the policing of crimes and unpopular ideas.
As a practical matter, while diversity is a good long-term target, there are more immediate concerns that pop up and should receive more focus than the stimulation of social consciences.
For instance, Frohnmayer still lists diversity as his main concern for the University, ahead of the Worker Rights Consortium concerns. Like the President of the United States being called away from long-range efforts to deal with more time-sensitive foreign affairs, Frohnmayer should have the recovery of Phil Knight’s goodwill and hefty coffers and the continued expansion of Autzen Stadium on his short-term radar. When important $30 million investments in University infrastructure appear to be falling through, just maybe that should receive heavy concentration.
While the end result of diversity, the respect for others, is obviously a positive goal, it is incredibly unfortunate that this University is arrogant enough to believe it is their role to prioritize virtues for its students and faculty.