Racial Diversity

Meaningless words are such a pain. I see words like sustainable and dynamic used in virtually ever scenario, yet they convey absolutely zero meaning. Despite sounding impressive and splashy, these empty words serve as an advertising gimmick that lessens the impact of messages. No matter how many “Sustainability Reviews” from BP I read, I doubt that their activities are truly encouraging sustainability in the biosphere. In the same way, I believe the words racial diversity is thrown around like an old rag doll that has seen better days. When a community is “racially diverse”, what does that really mean? The assumption is that there are many different types of people, but that may not necessarily be the case. Rather than an actual measure of diversity, it seems to be a superficial marker for potentially different backgrounds. Colleges can boast about the diversity of their students, but it’s diversity of environments rather than race that is significant. I believe that colleges should stop using race as an indicator for diversity and just be truthful about what the real environmental factors they are interested in.

It is understandable that racial diversity remains firmly ingrained within the minds of the American people. To transcend past transgressions, people will go to any lengths to make up for the past generations’ mistakes. This is not necessarily a bad thing; nothing is wrong with some of these actions such as increasing access to educational and economic opportunities. However, trying to enforce a racial diversity within a college community is still flawed. For example, consider the policy of affirmative action in higher education. The reasoning behind affirmative action is purportedly to enroll a wide variety of students from different backgrounds. This is a legitimate desire since the college experience for a student should not be limited to interacting with peers with similar perspectives. My main concern lies with whether a variety of races corresponds to a variety of backgrounds. I believe that environmental factors are more influential than race itself. For instance, the conditions that would make two students different include socioeconomic status, demographics of their respective communities, and the political influences of the communities. A white woman from southern California in a large public school with many different groups of people will most likely be significantly different than a white woman from Salt Lake City, Utah attending a small private school that is predominantly white and Mormon. They are different because environmental differences constitute the contrast of their personalities. It is not correct to automatically assume race as a condition for diversity. Thus, what schools should actually be looking for is not a diversity of races, but a diversity of environmental conditions.

Many people believe that affirmative action in higher education is necessary to enroll minorities in poorer conditions to improve the state of their respective race and communities. This is, once again, a legitimate point, but the real factor here is socioeconomic status and not race. A considerable number of schools are unable to gauge this factor because of the transition to “need-blind” admissions. In the spirit of fair admissions, the need-blind admissions are supposed to ensure acceptance based on students’ merit rather than a factor the students can’t control. Ironically, race is used to determine socioeconomic conditions. If the purpose of need-blind admissions was to rely more on the students’ merit, then why is race even a consideration? The public lauds need-blind admissions, yet policies like affirmative action are appreciated in the same way. Due to the need for racial diversity, the possibility of a black student in an upper class family attending a high achieving school getting admitted over a white student with the same merit in a poor neighborhood exists. This is the real flaw of the consideration of race in college admissions. Race is being used as a factor to determine other background conditions.

When a college throws in “racially diverse” as a term used to describe their college, it makes me really wonder what that means. I can’t necessarily assume that it corresponds to a diversity of backgrounds because that’s not what race does. In the end, racial diversity becomes a meaningless and trite phrase. If colleges truly care about gather a variety of students, then they should ask about environmental conditions. These could include the socioeconomic status of their community, demographics of their school, and the political leanings of their community. These factors are what really influence people. Race is a factor among many, but it should not be the sole indicator for diversity. The goal of progressive movements is to erase the semblance of difference. There is no point in talking of equality when colleges entrench the differences. Having a different color on your skin does not necessarily make you different.  Racial diversity is a hollow term used to divide the human race into senseless groups. The only race that is important is of the human kind. By no means should the colors of our skin be used to imply diversity.