[IMC-Editorial] Op-Ed Submission: The Racism of Diversity

[ARI Media]

Dear  Editor,

Please consider this Op-Ed submission from the Ayn Rand Institute.

THE RACISM OF "DIVERSITY"

The Supreme Court should recognize that "diversity" entails the same
premises as racism--that race determines one's ideas and that ethnic
bloodline is the source of an individual's value

By Peter Schwartz

The Supreme Court will soon hear oral arguments in the University of
Michigan "diversity" case. The two sides disagree largely over whether
or not "diversity" provides benefits compelling enough to justify using
race as a criterion for admission to college.  The Court, however,
should come to a more discerning conclusion. What America  urgently
needs is a ruling that recognizes "diversity" for what it is: a
malignant policy that harms everyone, because it is the very essence of
racism.

Unlike the policy of racial integration,  "diversity" propagates all the
evils inherent in racism.  According to its proponents, we need
"diversity" in order to be exposed to new perspectives on life.   We
supposedly gain "enrichment from the differences in viewpoint of
minorities," as the *MIT Faculty Newsletter* puts it. Admissions should
be based on race, the University of Michigan's vice president insists,
because  "learning in a diverse environment benefits all students,
minority and majority alike."

These circumlocutions translate simply into this: one's race determines
the  content of one's mind. They imply that people have worthwhile views
to express because of their ethnicity, and that "diversity" enables us
to encounter "black ideas," "Hispanic ideas," etc. What could be more
repulsively racist than that? This is exactly the premise held by the
South's slave-owners and by the Nazis' Storm Troopers. They too believed
that an individual's thoughts and actions are determined by his racial
heritage.

Whether a given race receives special rewards or special punishments is
immaterial. The core of racism is the notion that the individual is
meaningless and that membership in the collective--the  race--is the
source of his identity and value. To the racist, the individual's moral
and intellectual character is the product, not of his own choices, but
of the genes he shares with all others of his race.  To the racist, the
particular members of a given race are  interchangeable.

The advocates of "diversity" similarly believe that colleges must admit
not individuals, but "representatives" of various races. These advocates
believe that those representatives have certain ideas innately imprinted
on their minds, and that giving preferences to minority races creates a
"diversity" of viewpoints on campus. This is the quota-mentality, which
holds that in judging someone, the salient fact is the racial collective
to which he belongs.

This philosophy is why racial division is *growing* at our colleges. The
segregated dormitories, the  segregated cafeterias, the segregated
fraternities--these all exist, not in spite of the commitment to
"diversity," but because of it. The overriding message of "diversity,"
transmitted by the policies of a school's administration and by the
teachings of a school's professors, is that the individual is defined by
his race. It is no surprise, then, that many students associate only
with members of their own race and regard others as belonging to an
alien tribe.

If racism is to be repudiated,  it is the premise of individualism,
including individual free will,  that must be upheld. There is no way to
bring about racial integration except by completely disregarding color.
There is no benefit in being exposed to the thoughts of a black person
as opposed to a white person; there is a benefit only in interacting
with individuals, of *any* race, who have rational viewpoints to offer.

"Diversity," in any realm, has no value in and of itself. Investors can
be urged to diversify their holdings--but for the sake of minimizing
their financial risk, not for the sake of "diversity" as such. To
maintain that "diversity" per se is desirable--that "too much" of one
thing is objectionable--is ludicrous. Do brown-eyed students need to be
"diversified" with green-eyed ones?  Does one's unimpaired health need
to be "diversified" with bouts of illness?

The value of a racially integrated student body or work force lies
entirely in the individualism it implies. It implies that the students
or workers were chosen objectively, with  skin color ignored in favor of
the standard of individual merit.  But that is *not* what "diversity"
advocates want. They sneer at the principle of "color-blindness." They
want decisions on college or job applicants to be made exactly as the
vilest of racists make them: by bloodline. They insist that whatever is
a result of your own choices--your ideas, your character, your
accomplishments--is to be dismissed, while that which is outside your
control--the accident of skin color--is to define your life.

It is time for the Supreme Court to identify "diversity" as nothing more
than a crude form of racism.
________________________________________________________________________
_______
Mr. Schwartz, editor and contributing author of Return of the Primitive:
The Anti-Industrial Revolution by Ayn Rand, is chairman of the board of
directors of the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute
promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The
Fountainhead. Send comments to reaction at aynrand.org

If you plan to use this Op-Ed, please send an email to media at aynrand.org
with your publication's name and the expected date of publication. Thank
you.

David Holcberg
Media Department, Ayn Rand Institute
2121 Alton Parkway Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92606
Phone: (949) 222-6550 ext. 226
E-mail: davidh at aynrand.org

If you wish to have your email REMOVED from this list, please hit reply
and type REMOVE in the subject line. Thank you.