
One Kind of Diversity Colleges Avoid - randomname2
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-one-kind-of-diversity-colleges-avoid-1459464676
======
doomrobo
I've never heard of a single institution specifying the kind of the diversity
that they want. Just "diversity". What about intellectual diversity? Why
doesn't Harvard accept people from a diverse range of SAT scores? It makes me
wonder if these institutions actually accept the ideology they claim to
embrace, or if they just use buzzwords and do the bare minimum so they're not
labeled bigots.

~~~
home_boi
>Why doesn't Harvard accept people from a diverse range of SAT scores

They do

[http://features.thecrimson.com/2015/freshman-
survey/makeup-n...](http://features.thecrimson.com/2015/freshman-
survey/makeup-narrative/)

"Respondents who identify as Asian, but not including South Asian, reported
higher overall SAT scores on average, with an overall best score of 2300 out
of a possible 2400. The average best overall SAT score reported by white
respondents was 2218; 2174 for respondents who are Hispanic or Latino; and
2149 for respondents who are black or African American."

~~~
doomrobo
A range of 2149-2300 doesn't quite strike me as diverse.

------
panic
To save you a click: the kind of diversity in question is "political or
ideological diversity" with a focus on conservative politics and ideologies.

~~~
nickbauman
Conservative ideology is focused around defining _progress_ (a term somewhat
at odds with conservatism itself) as a return to a previous state of affairs
(that may have never existed in the first place). That our civilizations
apotheosis is somewhere in the past, not the future. This does not seem a
compatible _perspective_ with the idea of the university, which was handed
down to us from the ideas of Socrates: to probe the universe, to find the
answers to misunderstood and perplexing phenomena; to search for the truth. To
a conservative ideologue, the truth lies behind us. To the rest of humanity,
the truth lies beyond us.

That's not to say that history doesn't have an important role to play for the
forward-thinking. On the contrary. We'd like to get the record straight or as
close to right as possible. This often flies in the face of the imagined past
conservative thinking seems transfixed upon.

~~~
FlyingLawnmower
This strikes me as a vast generalization. I think that the author of the
article is also including people who have conservative economic views (he
calls out libertarians as a marginalized group, who are socially liberal and
economically conservative). Surely there's nothing about economic conservatism
that flies against progress or probing the universe.

While I am not conservative, I believe there is a lot that can be learned from
those with a conservative viewpoint.

~~~
nickbauman
Libertarians are in a special category. They are the ultimate utopians in the
sense that they believe, perhaps in the complete absence of understanding of
the role of the state in the creation of markets, that a market is purely a
point of exchange between two or more individuals. There has never been such
thing in history. Not in the sense that we understand civilization (for better
or worse) as it is today.

~~~
meric
Libertarianism and Conservatism doesn't make sense, as you said. Discourse of
these ideologies should be banned from university grounds.

------
known
"The greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less
they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects;
In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as
much as they do in the most homogenous settings."
[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/t...](http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/)

------
coreyp_1
paywall

~~~
c17r
Use the "web" button above

------
geofft
> The advocates of diversity in higher education claim that learning requires
> the robust exchange of ideas, which is enhanced when students and faculty
> have the greatest possible variety of backgrounds. They argue that exposure
> to people from different backgrounds breaks down unfair stereotypes and
> promotes understanding of those who come from different circumstances than
> oneself.

Huh. I thought that the advocates of diversity in higher education were saying
that it is fundamentally wrong to have an applicant pool and a worker pool
that is biased on some aspect that has no known scientific reason to be
intrinsically biased in that way, no plausible hypothesis for why it would be
intrinsically biased in that way, and plenty of known reasons to be
extrinsically biased. You could say it's fundamentally wrong because it's
morally unjust, or you could say it's fundamentally wrong because it's losing
you out on a large fraction of qualified candidates, but either way it's not
because of second-order effects like these people bringing new viewpoints and
ways of thinking.

I would imagine, for instance, that if a hypothetical Harvard noticed that
most of its current and prospective faculty were Boston Brahmin, it would
primarily look to diversify its candidate pool because there are tons of other
good candidates that they must be overlooking. There's probably also a
secondary effect of diversity of thought, and there probably _is_ a bit of
explanation as to why it's easier for well-established, well-connected
families in Boston to produce Harvard professors, and a tiny bit of that might
even be genetic intelligence. But it seems implausible that a well-functioning
recruitment process would primarily attract this crowd, and the conclusion
would be that the process is poorly functioning, not merely that it is poorly
accomplishing some secondary benefit of diversity.

If you accept this reasoning, then it's pretty clear why Prof. Hasnas'
experience -- as the "executive director of the Georgetown Institute for the
Study of Markets and Ethics, whose tripartite mission is to produce high-
quality research on matters related to the ethics of market activity, improve
ethics pedagogy, and educate the broader, non-academic community about ethical
issues related to the functioning of markets" \-- involves a lot of
discrimination on political viewpoint, and there is no contradiction or
hypocrisy in wanting discrimination on political viewpoint for a job in such
an institute but not wanting discrimination on genetics. Candidates applying
for such a job probably have an extensive _academic history_ of expressing
opinions on markets and ethics, and whether they are libertarian in those
forums is absolutely relevant to the recruitment process. (Their political
opinions they yell on Facebook is of course a different thing and much more
off-limits, but I don't believe that's what the professor or his committees
were referring to.) A well-functioning recruitment process for such an
institute _should_ be biased on what those candidates have written on these
topics and what viewpoints they've argued in favor of.

------
jccalhoun
Once I opened the link, I found that the kind of diversity he was talking
about was political (although I couldn't read it since it was behind a
paywall). As an academic, my first thought was, "bullshit. There are tons of
conservatives in business schools." Imagine my surprise when the author is a
professor in a business school:
[http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/Newindex.html](http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/Newindex.html)

Imagine my further shock when I find out that he is associated with the Cato
Institute: [http://www.cato.org/people/john-
hasnas](http://www.cato.org/people/john-hasnas)

Of course the fact that it was on the wall street journal editorial page
should have been my first clue about its subject matter.

~~~
PhantomGremlin
_As an academic, my first thought was, "bullshit. There are tons of
conservatives in business schools."_

Huh? That's it?

The only place for conservatives at a University is in its business school?

That clearly illustrates the point the article was making!

~~~
jccalhoun
I don't think I wrote that the only place conservatives are found is in
business schools.

My point was that arguing that there is a lack of diversity in political
thought is just plain wrong.

The author does not want diversity at all. He is a conservative is wants more
conservatives.

------
exolymph
I think it's fair to discriminate (in the literal sense) based on factors
people can affect or change, like political affiliation, but not based on
factors that people can't change, like race. [1]

That said, if you're touting your commitment to diversity, you really should
be seeking out, y'know, _diversity_. Including lots of different kinds of
people is a multifaceted endeavor.

[1] I know it's not legal to discriminate based on religion, which is kind of
similar to political affiliation, but I'm talking about my personal ethical
framework, not the law.

~~~
oh_sigh
Imagine if the keys to academic success were that you needed to believe that
blue is the best color. There is nothing intrinsic about blue being the best
color, and a good argument could be made that green is the best color. But,
everyone who holds the keys to the kingdom of academic success think that blue
is the best color, and won't let anyone in who thinks green is the best color.

Do you think that system is "fair"? Or a good one?

~~~
exolymph
This is a false equivalency because no intelligent adult believes that any
color is inherently superior, whereas many intelligent adults do believe that
certain political beliefs are inherently superior.

~~~
oh_sigh
Blue is obviously superior because of its wider variety of uses. Blue is a
much more popular color for cars than green. Blues are much more rare in
nature than greens, because blues are harder to recreate due to their superior
qualities.

Perhaps these intelligence adults aren't that intelligent after all. If you
think you are so smart think that you and 50% of other people have figured it
all out, and the 50% of other people are just idiots, then maybe you aren't
that intelligent after all.

