The Chronicle of Higher Education ran an article yesterday on “What Equity and Student Support Mean at Institutions That Have Been at It For Generations.” It was a moderated roundtable discussion with presidents “who hailed from historically black institutions, a tribal college, and community colleges serving Hispanic and Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander students.”
I found the remarks of Dillard University president Walter Kimbrough particularly interesting. Under the category of “Taking A Stand Against Racism,” President Kimbrough approvingly quoted students who are
saying, Man, I’m pent up with all the stuff that’s going on, I’m getting out in the streets. This is a way to channel the energy and the frustration of how everything closed, dealing with Covid, the fear of it. It gave them a renewed sense of, I have purpose, and I know why I’m here. Particularly as we’re in an election season, how can we keep doing that?
President Kimbrough’s view of student support includes (is there more?) is “to help channel that” going into the street.
Even more striking was his comment about “diversity.”
The president has to view themselves [sic] as the chief diversity officer. Not somebody that you hire, you give them a nice title, a little money, no staff, and then say, OK, I’ve done my job. It happens far too often. It’s got to be modeled from the top — that person is engaged with a diversity of students and showing that.
Nice preaching, but let’s take a look at how Dillard practices diversity. According to College Factual, a college evaluator, Dillard’s undergraduates are 91.4% black. 5.6% are ethnicity unknown, and there are not enough whites or Hispanics or Asians to count.
Dillard’s own figures are somewhat different, but the picture is the same monochrome:
African American: 68%
Non-Resident Alien/Intl Students: 1%
Asian/ Pacific Islander: 0%
Two or More Races: 15%
Dillard’s “Student Gender” numbers are also striking: Female: 75%; Male: 25%.
According to today’s gospel according to affirmative action, at selective colleges fewer whites and Asians must be admitted than would be the case without affirmative action and standards must be lowered for blacks and Hispanics so that a sufficient number of them can provide whatever benefits “diversity” has to offer to the whites and Asians who were admitted despite their race and ethnicity.
If the practitioners, pundits, and philosophers of higher education really believe what they preach about “diversity,” where is their concerted effort to round up at least a few white, Asian, and Hispanic males for Dillard and similar institutions?