The speculation about the ostensible nature of a hypothetical discussion of affirmative action conducted in the absence of Blacks was troubling. It was predicated on stereotyping by race (Blacks would make these points, while rich whites would whine) is precisely the kind of analysis that the Supreme Court majority would reject as a compelling ground to justify race discrimination in admissions. Compare the arguments of Thomas and Kagan. Who was black? That is not to say, that in some cases Black voices might have contributed to improving the discussion, but that is, again, speculative and ignores the diverse thinking of Asians and whites. The color blind treatment of every individual American is too important a principle to be derailed by vague claims that college discussions must be inclusive based on race.
I think the students in this example make a good point; race isn’t nothing and the discussion would be different without people of a particular race presents. I don’t think you have to conclude that the difference with and without is exactly what the stereotypes would have it be.
But I think the response to those students would be that the University of Austin delivered diversity in the sense that they describe it (QED, by the fact that these students are there to raise the point), and presumably the University of Austin does not practice affirmative action or have a DEI office.
Earlier in the podcast, Jay talks about how racist (with an implication that it is absurd) that the purpose of racial minority students at ivy league institutions is to bring an "ethnic" point of view. But saying that racial minorities bring an ethnic perspective to classroom discussions is, at the point in the podcast that we're commenting on, taken for granted. It's inconsistent. The average black student in that class and the average white student in that class have more in common with each other than the white student in that class has with me. My experiences provide a far different base than theirs. But the argument there was that I would have the same viewpoints as the well-off white student because we share a single solitary phenotype. I agree with Joe.
In the Ivy League, it might be true that the students there tend to be upper crust people who tend to have similar experiences. I don't know that it's as true for University of Austin or for society at large.
So I would agree that the affirmative action model has produced a lot of cynical tokenism, I would agree that if two people differ in race but not in anything else they're not really much different, and I would also agree that DEI offices and policies are generally wasteful or counterproductive, but I don't think that completely obsoletes any notion of diversity.
I can't pretend to have any special knowledge of the makeup of the University of Austin (although I tend to look at it favorably just knowing that many of my favorite thinkers teach there). But I think my criticism of racial diversity is the same as my criticism of any race-based initiative - that race is being used as a proxy for something else and that it would be more sensible to directly address whatever race is a proxy for rather than using a proxy in the first place. I don't think that racial diversity is bad, per se. I think that people still have a lot of tribalism in the way they think (which feels so obvious I feel dumb for even pointing it out, just look at our political landscape) and that incentivizing people to include those who *look* different in their tribe is a positive thing. To that extent, I agree with you. But to me, it shouldn't be a primary goal of any organization. If you have a diverse selection of skin tones, great, but diversity of opinions is far better, at least in an academic setting. And since race is merely a proxy for opinion in the context of that part of the discussion, it feels like race creates a very small positive impact.
The speculation about the ostensible nature of a hypothetical discussion of affirmative action conducted in the absence of Blacks was troubling. It was predicated on stereotyping by race (Blacks would make these points, while rich whites would whine) is precisely the kind of analysis that the Supreme Court majority would reject as a compelling ground to justify race discrimination in admissions. Compare the arguments of Thomas and Kagan. Who was black? That is not to say, that in some cases Black voices might have contributed to improving the discussion, but that is, again, speculative and ignores the diverse thinking of Asians and whites. The color blind treatment of every individual American is too important a principle to be derailed by vague claims that college discussions must be inclusive based on race.
I think the students in this example make a good point; race isn’t nothing and the discussion would be different without people of a particular race presents. I don’t think you have to conclude that the difference with and without is exactly what the stereotypes would have it be.
But I think the response to those students would be that the University of Austin delivered diversity in the sense that they describe it (QED, by the fact that these students are there to raise the point), and presumably the University of Austin does not practice affirmative action or have a DEI office.
Earlier in the podcast, Jay talks about how racist (with an implication that it is absurd) that the purpose of racial minority students at ivy league institutions is to bring an "ethnic" point of view. But saying that racial minorities bring an ethnic perspective to classroom discussions is, at the point in the podcast that we're commenting on, taken for granted. It's inconsistent. The average black student in that class and the average white student in that class have more in common with each other than the white student in that class has with me. My experiences provide a far different base than theirs. But the argument there was that I would have the same viewpoints as the well-off white student because we share a single solitary phenotype. I agree with Joe.
In the Ivy League, it might be true that the students there tend to be upper crust people who tend to have similar experiences. I don't know that it's as true for University of Austin or for society at large.
So I would agree that the affirmative action model has produced a lot of cynical tokenism, I would agree that if two people differ in race but not in anything else they're not really much different, and I would also agree that DEI offices and policies are generally wasteful or counterproductive, but I don't think that completely obsoletes any notion of diversity.
I can't pretend to have any special knowledge of the makeup of the University of Austin (although I tend to look at it favorably just knowing that many of my favorite thinkers teach there). But I think my criticism of racial diversity is the same as my criticism of any race-based initiative - that race is being used as a proxy for something else and that it would be more sensible to directly address whatever race is a proxy for rather than using a proxy in the first place. I don't think that racial diversity is bad, per se. I think that people still have a lot of tribalism in the way they think (which feels so obvious I feel dumb for even pointing it out, just look at our political landscape) and that incentivizing people to include those who *look* different in their tribe is a positive thing. To that extent, I agree with you. But to me, it shouldn't be a primary goal of any organization. If you have a diverse selection of skin tones, great, but diversity of opinions is far better, at least in an academic setting. And since race is merely a proxy for opinion in the context of that part of the discussion, it feels like race creates a very small positive impact.