COLUMN: Collectivism does not promote intellectual diversity

From Shiraz Allidina's, "Asian Hil Lizard," Fall '97 From Shiraz Allidina's, "Asian Hil Lizard," Fall '97 In choosing subjects for this column, ideally I prefer to discuss topics of true interest and importance, like good food, fine wine or decent cigars. Nevertheless, on occasion I succumb to the temptation of writing about tiresome trivialities such as politics or economics. This is such an occasion. Bear with me, for this may be a bit painful. I must admit I enjoyed her elegant, eloquent prose and found myself agreeing with many of her premises. But, I just couldn't come to agree with her conclusion. Rodin quite rightly points out "we must create a context in which a true diversity of views and opinions, persons and groups, politics and perspectives, is nurtured, valued and shared." She persuasively argues diversity benefits academia, and tends to nurture intellectual pursuit. Further, she champions a " 'reasoned and reasonable discourse' in which substantive arguments can be made, reasons advanced and new ideas generated." Hear, hear. However, all of this seemingly innocuous argument suddenly leads to the contention Penn should actively devote resources towards a policy which focuses on race. I disagree. (Deep breath.) This is a liberal institution. Liberal in the sense it refrains from making normative judgements about ethical precepts or intellectual perspectives. This ensures the University remain a forum of ideas, where young minds are educated rather than indoctrinated, and where vigorous, reasoned argument can advance our insight and knowledge. It works pretty well. Individuals from diverse backgrounds -- with differing perspectives and opinions -- are critical to this university's success as an institute of higher learning. The key word in that sentence is the first one. Rodin stresses "we are a community of differing identities" (my italics). At the risk of introducing a semantic debate, I would riposte we are a community of differing individuals. This may sound like nit-picking, but I think it's important to recognize that identity -- including that which is racially or culturally derived -- is an attribute of a person. Not the other way round. It is true minds and people are shaped by many influences, culture being one of them. But using such an argument to justify a race policy is dangerous in theory, and perilous in practice. Entertain this polemic: If members of a racial or religious group, let's say blacks or Jews, were deemed relatively homogenous in intellectual bent, would this justify a reduction in their numbers at the University? If most South Asians are judged conservative and pre-professional, should their enrollment be capped since they are not sufficiently intellectually diverse? Somehow, I don't think this kind of policy is what Rodin intended. Essentially, I'm trying to illustrate the absurdity of such argument as it applies to race. The administration would probably reply by saying that they don't endorse quotas, or specific numbers. Yet, the president's policy on Minority Recruitment and Retention at Penn clearly states, with regard to certain races, "the numbers are still not what they should be." Should be. It's important to note racial policies aren't without victims, contrary to Rodin's assertion. Assuming a finite number of admissions, a policy that has a preferential bias towards individuals of one racial group is biased against members of another racial group. That is not an opinion, it is an indisputable logical fact. Furthermore, an administration that lumps individuals together as conglomerations of "communities" hardly promotes diversity; rather, it fosters collectivism. Instead of 30,000 individuals, we soon have 150 "groups." Society is an aggregation of social individuals -- the individual is the principal, fundamental unit. He or she is not a mere function of society, or even of his or her attributes. When I refer to a black person, I actually mean a person who is black, rather than something black which happens to be a person. This also applies to Hispanics, Zoroastrians and Cartesian Dualists. And everyone else. Certainly, culture is a factor in determining intellectual makeup, but, like it or not, we remain rational beings. As such, reason is more important in shaping my mind than my ancestry, geographical location, or mother tongue. My pigment, I must emphasize, is of no relevance. Thus, a policy which gives preference to cultural background in order to promote diversity of intellect or "ideas" rests on tenuous ground. A policy which, in this context, concerns the degree of epidermal hue or genetic lineage has absolutely no intellectual foundation whatsoever. None. I cannot conceive of an active policy that would sensibly implement the goal of intellectual diversity, short of asking applicants questions like "are you an Aristotelian, or do you prefer Sartrian existentialism?" True diversity is brought about by a rich variety of individuals, not a system which (somewhat arbitrarily) lumps people into groups such as "Asian/Pacific Islander." The University should focus on creating a welcoming, open atmosphere. But this does not mean it should include a racial or cultural dimension to the admissions or faculty promotion process. I can't help feeling history will be unkind to Rodin's collectivist view. The current orthodoxy of racial preference will probably be looked upon with the same condescending derision now reserved for the well-meaning but similarly flawed McCarthy doctrine. In the mean time, I join Rodin in looking forward to reasoned and reasonable debate on the issue.