Hardly anyone better expresses what is wrong with racial preferences than John Rosenberg at Discriminations.
“Diversity,” like any true tribalism, treats all its valued components as fungible: what matters about a poor rural black son of a sharecropper from Pike County, Alabama; a hip-hop homey from the ghetto; the daughter of two black surgeons from Brookline; or a black Kenyan is that they’re all black. It’s good for the rest of us to be exposed to any one of them, doesn’t really matter which one. (Note, while I’m here, that “diversity,” as an argument, advocates using blacks to benefits whites. The blacks who were “diversity” admits to, say, to the University of Michigan would receive all of its benefits if they were forced to attend Michigan State or the University of Northern Michigan; the whites in Ann Arbor, alas, would be deprived of that exposure, and hence of the benefits of “diversity,” to the degree the former “diversity” admits weren’t there.) At some point maybe someone will explain to me why racial quotas are bad if racial preferences are good.
Just an excerpt. Do read the whole thing.
Comments