Diversity Smokescreen
City Journal | Andrew Fillat and Henry Miller
This is an important piece in the context of SFFA v Harvard and the broad use of the weighted and ubiquitous word “diversity” to justify race-conscious admissions. The authors explain that arguments for “diversity” are a smokescreen for the actual intent of providing reparations.
A glaring assumption about diversity:
“The main argument in favor of discrimination in admissions is that diversity enhances the educational experience. But is it true that a student body needs to parallel, even roughly, the demographics of the general population to ensure that students are exposed to people from diverse backgrounds?”
“It has become an article of faith that affirmative action, by enhancing narrowly defined diversity, improves education.”
Are racial preferences reparations?
“If racial preferences in admissions aren’t furthering the mission of a university, what are they doing? They become, effectively, a form of reparations.”
Are reparations permissible?
“The deeper question for the Supreme Court to decide in the battle over racial preferences is thus whether a university, private or public, should be allowed to dispense de facto reparations, even if existing law suggests that it is not permissible.”
