The recent debates about affirmative action have brought up this topic. For those who defend affirmative action, the most common argument is that it’s important to have racial diversity for its own sake. In Michigan, for instance, the student bodies at the state universities should reflect the racial composition of the entire state.
So let’s discuss a basic question: when is racial diversity important?
Let’s take, for example, Sidwell Friends School in Washington D.C., where numerous young Obamas, Gores, Clintons, and other children of our nation’s political elite have been educated. The school is 13% Black and less than 3% Hispanic. Yet it’s located in a city that’s more than half Black. St. Alban’s School, another favorite of the DC elite, is even less diverse: 75% white and only 10.7 % black. Terry McAuliffe, the newly elected governor of Virginia, sends his kids to Potomac School, where less than 2% of the students are Hispanic. The Hun School of Princeton, where many Princeton University faculty send their kids, is 2% Hispanic and 7% Black, while the State of New Jersey is 15% Black and 18% Hispanic. Are the young McAuliffe’s and other children of our country’s ruling class going to suffer from not being exposed to enough diversity during their education? Should people be beating down the doors and demanding that these schools admit more Blacks and Hispanics?
And why should education be the only area of concern? Let’s look at the U.S. Senate. Currently it has two Blacks, four Hispanics, one Asian American, and no Native Americans. This is actually a more racially diverse Senate that most others in recent memory. Four years ago the Senate had one Black and one Hispanic.
So what are the implications of this? Is it really fair that Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans have to put up with laws passed by a Senate where they barely exist? Should Blacks be forced to purchase health insurance just because a nearly-all-white Senate voted to make them do so? Should Hispanic business owners have to pay a minimum wage when only one Senator of their own race got to vote on the matter? Perhaps the Supreme Court should just declare that racial minorities don’t have to obey federal law until they’re better represented in the Senate.
To your main point, it is important for kids to be around kids of different races in school, as we all bring our own perspective and experiences to the classroom and a non-diverse student body would miss out on a lot. There doesn’t have to be an exact match to the racial composition of the local community, although that comparison is sometimes useful to see if some kind of intentional or unintentional barriers are in place.
This is why I, unlike many of my fellow liberals, don’t really care about exact racial quotas, as these racial inequalities are really reflection of class inequalities. However, the OP correctly points out the racial (and class) segregation occurring in the nation’s schools, to which the solution IMO is not pulling more money out of public schools through “vouchers” but rather requiring all private schools to admit by the same criteria as public schools do along with forbidding them from charging tuitions as they do in Finland.
This is so true, people in different races are so different that it would be almost impossible to know how to interact with other races unless one starts at a very early age. It is like learning a language in that respect.
My brother started school in a small city in Alaska that had only white and Eskimo students. He learned that those races liked to be treated with respect and kindness, but when our family moved to New York he had no idea how to treat black, asian, and hispanic people. It made for alot of strange interactions before he was able to learn what to do. If he had been older, who knows if he every would have learned.
How does the flotsam that follows this sentence address the question? People who are concerned about these issues are well aware that these same problems permeate lots of different aspects of society, including the federal legislature.
That raises the question: what do such students miss out on, and when is it important? For example, when I was a grad student at the Vanderbilt University Math Department, there was not a single Black person in the entire department: not as a professor, student, or anything else. There was one Hispanic grad student, but no Hispanic professors. Were I and my fellow grad students missing out on anything? Should action have been taken to address this situation?
As it happens, Vanderbilt overall was among the most diverse top universities. There was high representation of Blacks in particular among the undergraduates, but much lower among the grad students and faculty, and none at all in my department. So how do we determine exactly which groupings of people need to be made more diverse and which don’t?
Well then, I expect that any day now, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, and other prominent liberals will be speak out, demanding that their childrens’ school admit by the same criteria as public schools and stop charging tuitions as they do in Finland.
After all, we all know that liberals are dedicated to equality. It couldn’t possibly be the case that top Democratic politicians want their children to be raised in elitist enclaves, surrounded by other rich kids and walled off from the poor and most particularly the Black and Hispanic poor. Perish the though!
There are (at least) two different issues in play here. First, are the barriers in the Math Department for professors or students that are keeping qualified minorities out of the program. If so, I suppose we would all agree that could be addressed. (included in that is appropriate outreach efforts)
The second issue is what are the disadvantages to white students in not having a diverse student body and faculty in the graduate math department. If such students were lucky enough to have diverse educational experiences up to graduate school, I don’t think they’d necessarily suffer. There are certainly moments in my life where there are only white people present, but I have many more experiences where I interact with a wide variety of races and backgrounds. If I had not had diverse experiences in college and law school, I am certain my education would have been inferior in many ways.
Perhaps so, but we certainly here a lot more talk about affirmative action in some areas than others, and it seems worthwhile to discuss why that is. Racial diversity on college campuses is a big deal. It’s such a big deal that when the voters in Michigan abolished affirmative action, liberal groups sued to overturn that decision, and when that effort ended up losing, every liberal newspaper and magazine that I know of wrote editorials denouncing that decision.
On the other hand, I’ve can’t recall ever hearing those sources complaining about the racial diversity at elite, private high schools. And at best I’ve heard a very small amount of talk about the racial composition of the U.S. Senate. Certainly there haven’t been any lawsuits and those matters. Why not?
I imagine the word “private” is a big part of the reason; that’s certainly relevant if you’re asking about lawsuits. But I also doubt you’ve spent a lot of time listening to what liberals think about these issues. A major reason for liberal opposition to school vouchers is the possibility of increased racial and economic segregation in schools. No liberal is going to be surprised that if you look at privileged institutions like elite private schools and legislatures, of course they’re primarily white. That’s not news to anyone. The perspective for a lot of people on the left is that all of that is related to broader inequality and that it needs to be addressed.
Here is the real question: if the makeup of a socially significant institution like a university or a government body is racially very different from the makeup of the general population, does it not make sense to ask why? And does it not then also make sense – especially if such institution is in a position of enacting public policy (or, as in a university, of preparing future leaders) – to ask whether this disparity might be socially harmful?
To reiterate: You have the question backwards. It’s not a question of demanding that such institutions be racially consistent with the general population, as if one were doing some kind of frivolous color coordination; it’s a question of using it as a litmus test for basic social inequality.
I must be misunderstanding you. Did he think that black, Asian, and Hispanic people may not want to be treated with respect and kindness? Why wasn’t that his universal default?
I think it’s good and healthy for people to have self-respect, which is aided by having a sense of the culture you belong to and being proud of it. So, racial diversity is important in that respect.
I also think that it’s good to have diversity in the world, in the sense that more diversity means a wider variety of ideas are proposed and trialled.
But, there’s also a potential danger to racial diversity which is that some aspects of a culture might be a negative. Many things we do - wearing pants versus wearing skirts - are basically arbitrary and have no particular significance to anything. But speaking full, proper English is always going to count in your favor at work; so will respecting authority and not comitting petty theft. It’s not just because “white people” behave in a certain way and they don’t like it if you don’t do that same, white culture has evolved over the last several centuries to make successfuly, cooperative, hierarchical institutions work effectively. Holding to these behaviors isn’t “acting white”, it’s acting effectively.
I think it’s this latter issue that has been obfuscated out of public discussion.
Do you believe other cultures haven’t evolved that way? Your description of white culture sounds a lot like the basic definition of culture or society.
Take for example all of the various attempts during the Cold War to plonk down a Democratic government in random South American country X, which inevitably lead to some tyrannical state or military coup. The head of the CIA during some of this later became the president, had the chance the overthrow a little guy named Saddham Hussein and decided that occupying a nation for a couple of generations, to try and change its culture from above, wasn’t cost effective and wouldn’t happen any other way, so just smashed a bunch of tanks and left. His son, who hadn’t paid much attention, went back and tried to test the other path.
Or you look across the border at a country which has had constant interaction with the US, knows what’s offered by modern life and (presumably) how to get there, yet is still a corrupt political wasteland and its people receive little and/or poor education and masses of them live in shanty towns. The whole concept of personal property is vastly different and, by the standard of Americans, a lot of how people interact when they go to others houses or to work would count as basic theft.
“This place needs more white people,” said no one ever.
As for rich people’s kids, are you kidding with the race stuff? Their lives are so far removed from the commoners they may as well live in a different country. Like it’d be different if more rich black people went there.