In Re: "Diversity"

We thought the (morbidly obese) ghost of Gene Nichol and his libelous resignation email were buried. As the DOG Street Journal (am I paying WAY too much attention to these guys? Slow [WM] news summer...) continues to teach us, neither is at rest. In their latest "Tribe Vibe," the scions at DSJ turned their attention to "diversity" [note: "Diversity" is set in quotes since I refer not to real diversity of thought, outlook, and values, but to "diversity" of skin color, sex, or choice of sex partner]. Rather than repeat and critique the author point by point, I will attempt to present a centre-right view on the failures of "diversity" engineering, and a sketch of a collegiate society with actual diversity.
"Diversity" engineering's logical conclusion was displayed for all at the University of Delaware last fall. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Academia (FIRE) exposed a residence life orientation program that condemned all whites as racist (ignoring THE MERE POSSIBILITY of other races being racist), berated heterosexuals, and interrogated freshmen concerning their personal habits. When "diversity" must be achieved at the expense of free thought, what has society gained? A tapestry of totalitarians instead of an all-Aryan staffel? The author of the DSJ piece notes, "People seem so often to painstakingly edit their thoughts to produce overly P.C. responses, leaving only wisps of speakers’ true intentions and eliminating any actual frankness from the discourse," citing Nichol's Parting Libel as proof. Why might this be so? Is it not because those with dissenting views (on anything) sit among a 70 percent plurality (referring to Hopkins' election number)? Seventy percent is a greater percentage of support than Slobodan Milosevic, Robert Mugabe, and Franjo Tudjman claimed in their rigged elections. We're not quite at Saddam numbers yet, but who honestly believes that when "diversity" means nothing more than a rainbow of people saying the same thing, the silent pressure to conform renders thought police unnecessary?
"But wait!" says the liberal sycophant. "We hosted the anti-diversity speaker last year-we had dialogue and we [left-liberals] won." That wasn't dialogue either. That was an attempt by a (singular) (woefully misguided) conservative to commit ideological "shock-and-awe," and the plan failed. Instead of shocking the liberals into abandoning their long-held position, the tactic emboldened those who believe that conservatives are evil racists bent on a Restoration of Bull Connor and Orval Falbus (both Democrat governors of Southern states in the '60s). Bringing a Bosnian Serb (to those who know the Balkans, "Bosnian Serb" and "nationalist" are a redundancy when used in that order) to discuss race relations is like bringing the High Inquisitor of Spain (from 1500) to discuss interrogation techniques. This is not how to have a productive conversation.
But is it productive to have the Junior Senator from Illinois' (/Second Coming of Christ's/Twelfth
Imam's/Bodhisatva's/etc) version of the "national conversation on race" at our College? No, but that is what we now have. And I daresay even the DSJ author knows in his gut that that "conversation" isn't right somehow. This would explain his regret of "overly P.C. responses." What exactly that phrase means to him, I do not know. As for what it means to me, that is clear. It means not criticizing certain persons for their CONDUCT because of the fear of being called a racist/xenophobe/misogynist/fascist. It means that if you're not a "victim group," shut the fuck up and let us (diversity educators) do the talking. It means that you best parrot the party line lest you face the "bias response team." If you think that this is fearmongering, I would suggest you Google "University of Delaware residence life controversy" (third link is from FIRE) and "Dartmouth Professor Sues Students" to illustrate two examples of what can happen if free expression is not protected and peer pressure is used to compel obedience.
So where ought we go? How do we achieve diversity rather than "diversity?" We must protect the freedom of expression for all first. If officialdom can compel obedience to a party line, they do not need the seventy willing percent to enforce compliance (although they help). Second, each must be diplomatic in respect to alternative views. This doesn't mean that you accept or agree with the view-it means that no epithets ("hyper-conservative," perhaps, Mr. Nelson? Or maybe "hysterical xenophobe," FH?) are tossed and the matter can be put behind friends when the time comes (its hard, but it does happen-I speak from experience).
But what of interracial relations in this calm and civilized new world? We will learn them in the best of bad ways, by fucking up and learning from it. But the fuckups will be free to be corrected against any individual, not only "whites" [sidebar: "White," "Black," "Asian-Pacific Islander," etc. are absolutely arbitrary demarcations of difference. In early (pre 1900) US history, it used to be that one was classified by his nation of ancestry: Anglo, Irish, German, Italian, etc. Then Jim Crow-era "colored" and "white" replaced those, and the current racial system replaced that in the 1960s. One hopes one day "race" will go the way of slavery, with the recognition that although we have heritage (ALL OF US, not just some races/cultural groups) we are all firstly, secondly, and thirdly, Americans. end sidebar]. We will live together and get along, as most hoped that we would long ago, since no "race" owes "debt" to another and each individual must carry his weight. The free market ought to force this (if it were permitted) by bringing "the races" together in common cause, in which open racism would cause certain failure. In this regard, I would argue that I have learned more about getting along with people of different races from working in fast food than from the Office of Multicultural Affairs. If only that sort of experience were allowed. Let me now celebrate finishing this long post with a cup of tea (an Asian cultivation blended by Britons) while listening to rock and roll (derived from an African musical tradition through jazz by Americans and Britons) while reading the world news (from everywhere). You dont think that free trade will help any, no?

Coming Soon to an Ivory Tower Near You!

It seems that Mr. Jefferson's alma mater is not the only elite university with a vacant leadership post. In response to their presidential search (no doubt less acrimonious than ours), Dartmouth freshman Jordan Osserman had this to say: "Straight white men need not apply." If you want to torture yourself with the full identity-politics manifesto, here it is.
http://thedartmouth.com/2008/04/30/opinion/osserman/

A few observations. First, I believe it goes without saying that if anyone had written "Lesbian Chicano transgendered need not apply" the writer would be marksteyned (see post from 4/29). That is, he would be, if he were allowed to keep his life. It seems that all sexual orientations, races, and gender identies are equal, but some are more equal than others. Second, this is coming to William and Mary. All is quiet on the presidential selection front now, but as the deadline on Reveley's caretaker period approaches, surely we will see "enlightened" calls for certain people to take over at the Brafferton. The oddsmakers (me) have it at 5/1 that similar sentiments to Mr. Osserman's will be published by someone, perhaps in the DOG Street Journal (does anybody actually read that?).
Third and most importantly, let me call Mr. Osserman's sentiments what they are: absolutely fucking racist. It is patently shocking that so-called liberals, in the name of "progress," insist on clinging (if I may coin a phrase) to the same racial caste system used by Bull Connor and Jefferson Davis. If we are ever to move beyond "race" into true "multiculturalism" (for lack of a better word) it's about damn time we realize that culture doesn't fit into neat racial or ethnic categories. Why is it that two first-generation Americans, one Czech and one French, one whose parents fled Communism or Nazism and one whose parents freely emigrated, are classified as "Caucasian" with your humble correspondent, an at-least-fifth generation American whose ties to the "old country" are purely artificial? Why is it that a first-generation American whose parents immigrated from China classified as "Asian" with a third-generation American whose ancestors came from Japan before 1941? I could do this calculus for every "racial" group, but that would be excessive; the absurdity is demonstrated. Likewise, it is absurd to assume that only an "oppressed minority" can end "oppression." I cannot speak for Dartmouth. Perhaps they burn crosses and huddle in white sheets in the Ivy League. But from what I've seen at W&M, the "races" get along much better than anybody gives them credit for. Don't be the fool who cries "opression" every day of the week. You might look absurd, to say nothing of the fact that no one will listen when you're really being opressed.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0