National Assoc. of Scholars on Campus “Diversity Babble”
Posted by iusbvision on November 21, 2010
This is very fun to read, but it also shows a real problem. It shows how university administrators talk about tolerance and diversity but selectively enforce the rules to shut diversity down.
The headline of the local Chico, California newspaper was “Chico State planning for greater diversity”1. The front page story was about the now infamous California State University, Chico (CSU Chico) Diversity Action Plan that has been accurately described in Attack of the Giant Plethora, $600 for “Teaching to Diversity” at CSU Chico and from Diversity to Sustainability: How Campus Ideology Is Born. As I read the comments of the CSU Chico’s administrators, I noted how representative they were of the sloppy thinking and cynical dishonesty of many so-called diversity advocates.
According to the newspaper article, Gayle Hutchinson, Dean of the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences at CSU Chico, had enthusiastically explained that the university’s goal was “to increase the presence and impact of a variety of groups that may be inadequately represented” and “to create greater diversity at Chico State.” She also said that at CSU Chico diversity meant “ability, age, culture, race/ethnicity, gender identity and expression, sexuality, regional and national origin, political orientation, religion and socio-economic background.” This unusual list of variables immediately struck me as unrealistic and perhaps illegal to track. The article also reported that CSU Chico would have a “Chief Diversity Officer” whose job would be to “measure progress at increasing diversity.”
Let us consider how CSU Chico’s Chief Diversity Officer might go about measuring and tracking the demographic, behavioral and belief variables that Dean Hutchinson listed. Will CSU Chico survey student and faculty applicants concerning their political orientation or religion? Will the Chief Diversity Officer someday say, “We don’t have enough students who are Republican or Evangelical Christian,” or “we have too many progressive Democrats”? Will a student or faculty applicant someday be rejected because their religion is overrepresented? Just how might the Chief Diversity Officer determine whether CSU Chico has the requisite diversity of “gender expression”? Perhaps by asking applicants, “Do you ever cross-dress?” Maybe to determine “sexuality” they will ask students about the quality and frequency of sexual relations, or perhaps ask them to rate their interest in sexual activity on a scale of 1 to 10. Perhaps Dean Hutchinson meant sexual orientation instead of sexuality, but is CSU Chico planning on asking student and faculty applicants about their private sexual preferences? Maybe they will take a more underhanded approach by requiring every applicant to submit a photo and write an essay on how they would contribute to diversity at CSU Chico. Then if an applicant doesn’t reveal enough personal information or doesn’t look like a minority, they can be safely rejected using the charade of the “whole person” concept. If you think this last option might be a bit farfetched then please read College Application Essays: Going Beyond “How Would You Contribute to Diversity?”.5
What exactly did Dean Hutchinson mean by increasing the diversity of ages and abilities? Is Dean Hutchinson expecting to increase the number of middle-aged adults and seniors in undergraduate classes? What abilities was she specifically referring to? Mental, physical? Or was it to some restrictions in those abilities that she was referring? What exactly are those “abilities” that are so important and “may be inadequately represented” that CSU Chico is willing to spend precious funds to locate and recruit people with them? Is Dean Hutchinson implying that people of color or of a specific ethnicity have special abilities not found in the white population? What exactly did Dean Hutchinson mean, by “regional and national” origin, considering that CSU Chico is a state university with a mission of providing higher education opportunities to the sons and daughters of California burdened tax payers?