Post by RS Davis on Dec 12, 2003 19:33:58 GMT -5
The notion of "diversity" entails exactly the same premises as racism--that one's ideas
are determined by one's race and that the source of an individual's identity is his
ethnic heritage.
By Peter Schwartz
Texas A&M president Robert Gates should be praised for announcing that
race will no longer be a factor when applications are considered, and
that students "should be admitted as individuals, on personal
merit--and no other basis." What is needed now is for him, and others,
to go further in challenging "diversity." They ought to declare their
categorical opposition to racism--and, therefore, their repudiation of
the entire policy of "diversity," which is simply an insidious form of
racism.
Unlike the valid 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.
We need to identify "diversity" for what it is: a malignant policy
that harms everyone, because it is the very essence of racism.[glow=red,2,300]
_________________________________________________________________________________
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 (www.aynrand.org) in Irvine, Calif. The
Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The
Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2003 Ayn Rand® Institute
This article is copyrighted by the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), and cannot be reprinted
without permission except for non-commercial, self-study or educational purposes. We
encourage you to forward this op-ed to friends, family, associates or interested parties
who would want to receive it for these purposes only . Any reproduction of this article
must contain the above copyright notice. Those interested in reprinting or
redistributing this article for any other purposes should contact media@aynrand.org.
This article may not be forwarded to media for publication.
[/glow]
are determined by one's race and that the source of an individual's identity is his
ethnic heritage.
By Peter Schwartz
Texas A&M president Robert Gates should be praised for announcing that
race will no longer be a factor when applications are considered, and
that students "should be admitted as individuals, on personal
merit--and no other basis." What is needed now is for him, and others,
to go further in challenging "diversity." They ought to declare their
categorical opposition to racism--and, therefore, their repudiation of
the entire policy of "diversity," which is simply an insidious form of
racism.
Unlike the valid 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.
We need to identify "diversity" for what it is: a malignant policy
that harms everyone, because it is the very essence of racism.[glow=red,2,300]
_________________________________________________________________________________
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 (www.aynrand.org) in Irvine, Calif. The
Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The
Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2003 Ayn Rand® Institute
This article is copyrighted by the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), and cannot be reprinted
without permission except for non-commercial, self-study or educational purposes. We
encourage you to forward this op-ed to friends, family, associates or interested parties
who would want to receive it for these purposes only . Any reproduction of this article
must contain the above copyright notice. Those interested in reprinting or
redistributing this article for any other purposes should contact media@aynrand.org.
This article may not be forwarded to media for publication.
[/glow]
