I have a new article in the Summer 2021 issue of the National Association of Scholars journal, Academic Questions. It argues, among other things, that the new emphasis on “equity” threatens affirmative action as much as it does the increasingly old-fashioned principle prohibiting the state from benefitting or burdening individuals based on their race.
“Equity” For Whites?
On Instapundit Glenn Reynolds quotes a New York Times article calling for the end of race-blind auditions for orchestras: “If ensembles are to reflect the communities they serve,” the article asserts, “the audition process should take into account race, gender and other factors.”
To which Reynolds responds:
No one ever argues that sports teams, or university faculties, should “reflect the communities they serve.” For example, should the University of Tennessee faculty be 60+% Republican, like the state of Tennessee? Even in blue states, such a rule would produce a massive influx of Republicans onto state university faculties. And that would be equitable, right?
Perhaps the best thing that can be said about the increasingly shrill and pervasive demand for “equity,” i.e., proportional representation, is that its advocates don’t really believe in it. As I argue in an article about to appear in the summer issue of Academic Questions, the journal of the National Association of Scholars:
Contrary to widespread misunderstanding, the most “underrepresented” racial or ethnic students among entering Berkeley freshmen in 2020 were whites, at 47 percent of what Kendi and the antiracists regard as equity or parity, i.e., a number equal to their proportion of the California population. By contrast, Hispanics are at 54 percent, blacks 57 percent, and the “overrepre- sented” Asians are at a whopping 268 percent.
To make their numbers reflect their 6.5 percent proportion of California’s population, the number of black entering freshmen would have to be increased from their current 229 to 398, an increase of 74 percent. The number of Hispanics, 1,310, would have to increase to 2,413, or by 84 percent. Whites would have to increase from 1,053 to 2,235, a 112 percent increase. The most dramatic effect of imposing proportional representation on the University of California would be a draconian reduction in the number of Asian freshmen: from 2,551 to 949, a decrease of 63 percent.
In short, as I’ve argued on my blog here and here, for the University of California to “look like California,” the number of Asians would have to be cut in half, and the number of whites increased proportionally much more than blacks or Hispanics.
One wonders if the “mirror” advocates really want that. Actually, one doesn’t.
Ad For Ohio State Diversity Officer
The following ad appeared in Inside Higher Ed’s Diversity Insider emailed April 13. Assistant Dean for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion and Chief Diversity Officer The Ohio State University The Ohio State University is seeking a Assistant Dean for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion and Chief Diversity Officer A Assistant Dean? Is writing and speaking non-standard English […]
A History Assignment For President Biden
On Tuesday night President Biden acknowledged to George Stephanopoulos of ABC News that he was now open to “reform” of the rule allowing Senate filibusters. Since his own deeply held, passionate views on the necessity of the filibuster over the years have been what might charitably be labeled inconsistent — varying in lockstep with which […]
How Bad Is Cancel Culture?
I have an ongoing email correspondence with a good old friend (who’s also an old good friend) who doesn’t think things are as bad as I do. I respect this friend’s views. He’s sort of liberal but basically non-ideological and non-partisan and reads more widely than most. I will refrain from naming him so as […]
The End Of Civil Rights?
I have a new essay on Minding The Campus: “Systemic Racism,” “Equity,” and the End of Civil Rights. It’s something of a follow-up to: ‘Equity’?
Cancel Culture, Eugene Debs, And Free Speech
I have a new essay at City Journal discussing the confrontation between America’s greatest socialist (sorry Bernie) and cancel culture. Of course back then “cancel culture” had not yet been given its fancy name. Then it was just called repression,.
Recent Comments