Diversity is the reigning social and political ideal of our age

Monday, February 26th, 2018

Diversity is the reigning social and political ideal of our age, and it got its start with a “scattered” Supreme Court ruling:

In 1974 California resident Allan Bakke brought suit against the University of California, Davis for twice rejecting his application to its medical school. Despite his having test scores well above average for the school’s applicant pool in addition to four years service in the Marine Corps and a seven month tour in Vietnam, UC-Davis refused Bakke admission. The School of Medicine justified this in part because of his age — such discrimination being perfectly legal at the time — and in part because of the manner in which he blamed his first rejection on the School’s affirmative action policy. Beginning shortly after its founding in 1968, the Davis medical school operated a quota system for racial minorities in which around 15 percent of its admission slots were reserved for non-white students. Although Congress believed its Civil Rights Act banned quotas in employment and the Department of Labor under President Nixon clearly forbade them, colleges and universities had been using various types of admissions quotas for decades and were committed to continuing them.

In 1978, four years after Bakke’s original suit, the Supreme Court issued its famously scattered ruling. The nine justices issued six separate opinions, none gathering a majority. Justice Lewis Powell’s idiosyncratic opinion, however, garnered enough partial support in places that it stood as the judgment of the Court. In a victory for affirmative action opponents, it ordered Bakke to be admitted to the Davis School of Medicine and barred the use of racial quotas. Yet in a victory for affirmative action supporters, the Court also agreed that some alternative system of racial preferences could pass constitutional muster. It is precisely here that the ideology of diversity entered mainstream American thought and practice.

Justice Powell argued that “a diverse student body” was a worthy goal of any university which allowed the consideration of race in admissions. He justified this neither on the grounds of racial justice nor the amelioration of past or present discrimination, but on the grounds of diversity. Powell claimed that racial and ethnic diversity advanced the core intellectual mission of American higher education, namely “speculation, experiment and creation,” “the interplay of ideas and the exchange of views,” and an encounter of differing “ideas and mores of students as diverse as this Nation of many peoples.” This claim hardly originated with Powell, of course. He was simply repeating the collective views of Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, and the University of Pennsylvania as stated in their joint brief to the Court in defense of affirmative action. According to the country’s most elite private universities, diversity in all its forms — race, region, social class, field of interest, occupational life plan (although not sex, as Harvard College was male-only until 1977 as was Columbia College until 1983) — is a precondition for the best educational experience possible.

Powell’s endorsement of the so-called ‘Harvard plan’ as a constitutionally permissible and even preferable equal opportunity practice spread diversity throughout American higher education and the elite business sector. Equal opportunity officers and consultants morphed into diversity officers and consultants. New diversity categories expanded older affirmative action mission statements. Diversity training replaced race relations workshops. Culture audits burst onto the scene. By the early 1990s, diversity had conquered Corporate America.


  1. Bob Sykes says:

    To quote Heartiste, “Diversity + Proximity = War.”

    As Putnam has shown (against his will), diversity itself destroys communities and trust. Note that this applies to all sorts of diversity, not merely black vs white as affirmative action (Nixon’s doing) usually implies. And the destructive nature of diversity applies to all sorts of organizations, not just schools, but businesses, military units, etc.

    America is a multicultural, multiethnic empire. Such empires are held together by brute force, viz Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, for only one example. Eventually, the push for diversity must lead to dictatorship here, too.

    It should also be noted that diversity demands identitarian politics, and political parties aligned along racial lines. Hence, Diane Feinstein’s recent humiliation at the hands of the Latino/Asian California Democrat Party. Progressive Whites and Jews, like Feinstein, will have to form their own progressive party for Whites and Jews only, if they want to lead. Perez and Ellison are the new face of the Democrat Party.

    The Bush/Kasich/Kristol/French cuckservatives will also need to form their own party. There’s no place for them in Trump’s populist Republican Party.

    Identitarian, fragmented parties means coalition politics, with all the weirdness one sees in Europe, Belgium without a government for a year or so, and no one noticed.

  2. Sam J. says:

    “…Progressive Whites and Jews, like Feinstein, will have to form their own progressive party for Whites and Jews only, if they want to lead. Perez and Ellison are the new face of the Democrat Party…”

    I’ve been saying lately that it’s probably too late to save the country. The least we Whites can do is team up with the immigrants and throw the Jews out. They are the primary reason we’re headed how we are and they think they will run the show. If we can’t have a country then at least we can have revenge. After all I’ve had no problem in my life dealing at a personal level with Blacks, Hispanics and Asians but the Jews have driven this country right into the ditch. Without them maybe we could salvage what’s left.

Leave a Reply