June 29, 2003

DIVERSITY: THE NEW SHIBBOLETH

Yale Kramer

Knaves and fools invent catch-words and shibboleths to keep honest persons from coming to just understanding.—Sir Walter Scott, 1809

I am sure that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is neither a knave or a fool, but often kindly people believe foolish things, and Justice O’Connor has received, unexamined, the foolish notion bequeathed to the Court 25 years ago by Justice Powell in Bakke that “student body diversity is a compelling state interest.” (Underlining ours.)

The theme of diversity runs throughout her opinion in the Michigan Law School case. Indeed, it is the basis of her opinion: “…respondents [the law school] assert only one justification for their use of race in the admissions process: obtaining ‘the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.’ In other words, the law school asks us to recognize, in the context of higher education, a compelling state interest in student body diversity….Today, we hold that the law school has a compelling interest in attaining a diverse student body.”

There are many reasons that argue against O’Connor’s opinion, and these have been articulated most recently by Shelby Steele in the Wall Street Journal and Carol Iannone in the National Review Online. What seems to have been neglected is an examination of O’Connor’s use of the concept of Diversity itself in the context of higher education. Although it is used dozens of times in her opinion it remains vague and enigmatic.

She accepts unquestioningly the school’s educational judgment that diversity is essential to its educational mission, and that diversity will “in fact yield educational benefits.” This despite the fact that a study by the National Association of Scholars as well as two other studies (see Iannone) have shown “that the only educational benefit of proportional representation is…proportional representation itself.” Despite the doubtful claims made by the school that racial diversity “promotes learning outcomes…and better prepares them [the students] as professionals…” these claims remain unexamined in her opinion.

When one searches the decision for some description of the way racial diversity could educationally benefit students one looks in vain. The best that you can come up with is “students who will contribute most to the robust exchange of ideas.” Or “classroom discussion is livelier, more spirited, and simply more enlightening and interesting when students have the greatest possible variety of backgrounds.”

When you read this without thinking too hard it doesn’t sound so bad at all. As a matter of fact it sounds like fun. Who wouldn’t want to participate in a nice, spirited conversation with a robust exchange of ideas? Sounds like a fun dinner party, so let’s have Mary (a lawyer), Tim (a businessman), Charlie (a psychoanalyst), Mark (a history professor), Diane (a historian of education), Sarah (a black theatrical producer and very witty), Chuck (a real estate broker and gay) over for dinner next Friday. We are a little worried because they are all strangers to each other, but for some reason we feel that it will turn out to be entertaining. Everyone will gossip and tell anecdotes about their current lives, and express their views about Martha, or Hillary, or Dubya. We’d hear a couple of lawyer or broker jokes. The stock market (oh the losses), plays, movies, until well past 11pm. Would there be any profound wisdom expressed, ideas that will stand the test of time, important knowledge? Are you kidding? But it will be a hell of a good evening.

Now what if we did a little social science experiment and had invited Alessandro, our building superintendent, and his sweet wife Teresa, both of whom speak heavily accented English. Alessandro is a little injured if you mistake him for someone from Puerto Rico and will remind you that he and Teresa are from Cuba, where he was a runner-up for the Jai-Lai championship thirty-five or forty years ago. Today, both of them proud Americans. And maybe one more couple, Charlayne, our pretty neighbor who lives in one of the hi-rise projects nearby and works at the local supermarket checkout counter. She is a single mother with two kids: Oprah, age 3, and a little boy named Thurgood, aged 4. And let’s add her boyfriend, Harmon, who works in her supermarket behind the deli counter and appears to be a very cheerful guy.

Now our dinner party would look like America, diverse, right? We’d have a few Jews, a few Protestants, a couple of Hispanics, a couple of Blacks, one or two Catholics, different national backgrounds. (Of course we’ve left out the Moslems, the Hindus, the Asians, Baptists, Southerners, etc. etc. Oh, well, nothing’s perfect.)

Now what do you think would happen to our entertaining dinner conversation, to that lively, enlightening, robust discussion. One of two things, either the first group would accept the four newcomers as equals and assume that they would freely engage in the discourse (after the usual introductions, of course), or they would treat the newcomers in a special way—different from the way the original group (strangers all) treated each other.

In the first case, if the original group treated the newcomers as equals, the conversation would develop as before, but the newcomers would remain silent for the most part—except, perhaps, for Alessandro who is used to speaking to the building management and to tenant-shareholders. For the most part the newcomers would not be able to process the speed, the fragmentation, and the foreignness of a casual dinner conversation among articulate people. Not because the subject matter is profound, or complicated, or derived from higher education. Kant would not be mentioned, nor “conspicuous consumption,” nor cogito ergo sum, nor the enlightenment, although there might be a reference to the new free production of Hamlet in the park.

In fact the dinner conversation would be superficial, disconnected, and non-serious, but the four newcomers would not participate much because of unfamiliarity both with the substance and the non-verbal style of the communications. Just as I feel unable to keep up with an informal fast-moving conversation in an Irish pub. Even though everyone is speaking English, I wouldn’t be able to catch references, accents, idioms, and attitudes. I would feel myself falling behind in the conversation and dropping out of it.

In the second case, in which the original group began to treat the newcomers as special guests out of tact, sympathy, guilt or a combination of all three, ordinary conversation would be markedly changed. There would be a slowing down and narrowing of the focus to the lives and experiences of the newcomers and an attempt to bridge some social gaps. The humor would probably diminish, because humor depends on the expression of socially acceptable amounts of aggression and when you’re unfamiliar with a sub-culture you don’t exactly know where the acceptable line is, so you play it safe. In any case the conversation, instead of being spirited, lively, and interesting, begins to feel formal, cramped, and dumbed-down.

If this large group met once or twice a week for the next three months, there might be some improvement in the quality of the discussion, but the basic trends would probably continue—the slow cramped newcomer conversation and the lively, fragmented conversation with only limited participation of the newcomers.

What does this tell us about the notion that racial diversity enhances discussion—any kind of discussion, educational or not? First, it tells us how stupid the idea is that there is such a thing as a Black point of view or an Hispanic point of view. Harmon does not have the same view of the world as Colin Powell, or Phil Ivey, the world class poker champion, any more than my white point of view is the same as my daughter’s point of view.

Secondly, capacity for discussion is largely determined by thinking, and articulation skills, not by race. Educated individuals are better at discussion because the process of education occurs by means of verbal communication. Different occupations allow individuals to practice verbal skills more or less—teachers more, farmers less. Some families encourage verbal skills, some encourage sports skills. But how can having Blacks, or Hispanics in a class enhance robust discourse, by virtue of their ethnicity alone?

The only educational courses in which uninformed opinions are welcomed, are what is known among students as bullshit courses—courses in which no education takes place because there is no tradition of knowledge that must be communicated to the student. All opinions are equal, all views are acceptable. These course are usually centered on some multi-cultural, or ethnocentric subject—Discrimination in America 101. Such courses will be greatly enhanced by testimonies of racial discrimination from Blacks and anybody else who feels discriminated against.

Any program or course that teaches a discipline that has a body of knowledge, a method, a set of principles, and a body of facts acquired empirically will not have “bullshit” courses in its curriculum. The teachers of such courses, if they are responsible, will be obligated to use class time to minimize discussion which is not focused on doing the job at hand—teaching the curriculum. Such teachers are not interested in a student’s opinions about the material, only that he or she understands it. Discussion in such classes exists for the purposes of clarifying the material, and only that.

Let’s take a course in neuroscience 101. The professor is not interested in the students’ opinion about the Amygdala (a part of the brain) but only that they understand that its function appears to be storing affective memories and the evidence for that currently accepted hypothesis. There could not possibly be any value in encouraging debate or discussion from the students about this matter simply because their opinions would not be informed opinions. Such a teaching attitude is not repressive, nor does it lead to crushing students’ imaginative or creative impulses. It is just common sense.

You wouldn’t want to learn about the way the brain works from your teenage son or daughter. You would want to hear the story from someone who really is well informed about it. And educational time is a precious commodity. The attitude of the professor of neuroscience towards robust discussion and disagreement is altogether different in a post-doctoral seminar on the Amygdala. There, free discussion is highly desirable, because the discussants are well-informed and the discussion occurs on the very cusp of what is now known.

The fact is that “higher education” is not very high. What passes for education in college is in reality an introduction to knowledge. Even in professional schools, like medical school, the student spends most of his or her time and energy in learning the most basic things in a vast array of clinical and non-clinical science. This is what a cancer cell looks like under a microscope. This artery is called the carotid artery. The signs and symptoms of inflammation are such and such. Baby medicine really. And there is not much room for robust discussion here either; you better know the stuff cold or you don’t get out of medical school—or if you just squeak by you won’t get an internship or residency. Or your colleagues won’t send patients to you. Real medicine starts when you start practicing. Nothing focuses the attention more than having a patient come to see you with a symptom you recognize is serious.

Now let’s turn to the University of Michigan Law School and their claim that racial diversity benefits the educational process by encouraging classroom discussion that “is livelier, more spirited, and simply more enlightening and interesting.”

Here is a description of the course in the law of property at the University of Michigan’s Law School:
“A basic survey of the law of property which examines the forms and methods by which property interests are held, used, and transferred, with emphasis on real estate. Includes present and future estates, concurrent ownership…. bailment, easements, promises respecting the use of land, water rights, control of air space, nuisance, adverse possession, gifts of personal property, vendor and purchaser, conveyances of land, land title insurance….”

A more spirited discussion on the law of easements? You must be joking. Clearly this is a survey course with much basic material to be got through in the time available, not much time for robust debate.

Now everybody who has seen the film “The Paper Chase” knows that one of the techniques in the teaching of law school is the Socratic method. The trouble is that anyone familiar with Socratic dialogues understands that the furthest thing from Plato’s mind in writing Socratic dialogues is a free flowing bull session in which every one’s opinion is equal. Students seek Socrates out to be enlightened, because he has the power to lead them from their error to his truth and wisdom. The same is true in law school. The professor has the right idea, and he engages the students in questioning to see if they have the right idea. And since some of the ideas are complex and subtle, many of the students must expose their ignorance or error in order to be corrected. The professor is not really interested in dinner party conversation, or even a more lively, spirited discussion by the students. He is interested in getting the basic ideas across, and if, in the bargain, out of his narcissism and exhibitionism he can present himself as being spirited, lively, and interesting, all the better.

The University of Michigan makes clear that the work of the first year of law school is the standard curriculum taught in most law schools. “Most of the work for the first year is required. There are several reasons for this. One reason is that there are some basic principles which any serious and thoughtful student would choose to study early in his or her career. The study of this fairly traditional material has become one of the experiences shared by almost all lawyers.”

And here is part of the Law School’s statement on the course in civil procedure: “This course is similar to the introductory civil procedure courses taught at most law schools for the last two or three decades…. In common with most courses, this course covers the basic institutions of civil litigation…. At least the rudiments of claim and party joinder and res judicata also are covered. Unlike most first-year civil procedure, however, this course does not cover any of the variety of topics loosely described as jurisdiction. Those topics have been moved into the upper level elective course in Jurisdiction and Choice of Law.”

The fact is that there is big chunk of basic learning that has to be accomplished in law school and there is little time or use for bull sessions—lively or otherwise. The classroom discussion is primarily for clarification, getting the concept right—not for spirited debate.

The basis for O’Connor’s decision was her unexamined acceptance of the idea that racial diversity in itself in some way has educational benefits. This notion is largely a sham, an empty suit, meant to disguise the same old, same old un-American social engineering practices, stacking the deck in favor of preferred groups—often made up of individuals who have never suffered discrimination—and against groups whose members may be innocent of discrimination themselves. Fairness requires getting rid of state empowered favoritism in all its forms.