Feb 122007
 
Authors: James Easton

When I first arrived at CSU, I had difficulty finding Student Services. Walking through the Lory Student Center, I stumbled upon Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Student Services; El Centro Student Services; Black Student Services, and others.

I thought perhaps I should be looking for the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Heterosexual Student Services, rather than something so quaint and neutral as Student Services.

Actually, being British, I should probably have inquired as to the location of the British Student Services, since Brits living in America are an uncommonly special group. I imagined such an office might use Federal Work Study funds to gainfully employ students in brewing fresh English breakfast tea for the occasional tired Brit who might pop in, a Union-Jack flying conspicuously by the door.

While this might be humorous, it is the state of affairs advocated by champions of diversity. In the name of tolerance and multiculturalism these people actively encourage those who are in any way different to embrace their differences and to fully identify with a narrow loyalty.

This is an insidious and destructive trend in America.

Stanford economist Thomas Sowell writes, “Those who are constantly gushing about the supposed benefits of ‘diversity’ never want to put their beliefs to the test of looking at the facts about countries where people are divided by language, culture, religion, and in other ways, such as caste in India. Such countries are all too often riddled with strife and violence.”

How is it that multiple Student Services can exist, each serving a narrow social group? Is this not exactly what is meant by the term “separate but equal,” which expresses a concept used to justify segregation before Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson on the issue. Is this not the reviled concept so many champions of diversity expend energy reminding us about?

An example of a champion of diversity is Jake Blumberg, who in a column in the Collegian on Feb. 2 argued for greater diversity, the best definition of which he considered to be “.the act of networking with people around us – people unlike us in some way.”

This sounds reasonable, since the people I have come to know at CSU are in their own way unique and interesting, with different interests and views. This definition therefore fits the common sense views about diversity.

However, Jake’s operational definition is quite different from this stated definition. After informing us of the segregated nature of major U.S. cities where the inner city is primarily African-American and/or Hispanic and the suburbs primarily Caucasian, Jake states his objection to this fact, saying, “Without interacting together.we will have a homogenous experience, quite opposite from any working definition of diversity.”

Thus, based upon his own definition, Jake Blumberg categorically pre-judges all Caucasian suburbs as homogenous zones where it is not possible to find people “unlike us in some way.” Obviously this is false, but to Jake the differences among Caucasians are not the important ones. Apparently, Caucasian means Borg.

This is because Jake’s operational definition of diversity is based solely upon diversity of color, or race. This explains why race and color are mentioned throughout the article, while not appearing anywhere in the definition of diversity he applauds. This act of judging a group based solely upon its race or color is exactly the definition of racism.

There is nothing wrong with diversity. However, rather than advocating policies that encourage some measure of equality and unity among members of society, many advocates of diversity promote ideas and policies that lead to the splintering of society into conflicting loyalty groups along various lines of identity, all advocating narrow and sometimes racist agendas.

Rather than E Pluribus Unum (from many, one) the Latin term appearing on our coins, a better term for the times might be the more apt phrase by Hobbes, Bellum Omnium Contra Omnes (the war of all against all).

James Easton is a civil engineering second bachelor’s candidate. His column appears occasionally in the Collegian. Replies and feedback can be sent to letters@collegian.com.

 Posted by at 5:00 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.