For anyone familiar with the American university and its gospel of multicultural diversity, the revelation that Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren exploited her 1/32 Cherokee ancestry to pass as a minority is a dog-bites-man story. For decades now universities have depended on the superficially non-white “other” to fulfill and tout their “commitment to diversity” and their doctrine of “multiculturalism.” Meanwhile, the only diversity that counts, the diversity of minds and points of view, is ignored. Instead, the rigid leftist ideology of American historical wickedness and oppression is imposed on the presumed bastions of truth and free minds.
The phoniness of such “diversity” is evident on multiple levels. Warren’s ploy is not that much more egregious than the thousands of Caucasians with Hispanic surnames who pass as minorities in American universities. White Chileans, Argentines, and Mexicans come to American colleges and are transformed into “Chicanos,” a category that has little reality outside a college campus. Hiring Basques or Spaniards counts as increasing “diversity,” even though they have nothing culturally in common with the mestizo or Indian children of farm-workers. So too with African or Caribbean blacks, who are hired not because they bring the unique perspective of their homelands to their intellectual work or teaching, but because they count as “black,” and thus are assumed to have some mystical connection with American black students and their cultural identity, which owes much more to American culture and history than to African.
Of course, socio-economic differences among American minorities are also ignored in the rush to promote diversity. A Mexican-American dentist’s or schoolteacher’s daughter who never cut a grape or washed a dish supposedly has some special insight into poor or working-class Mexicans. A light-skinned black son of college-educated parents who grew up in the suburbs gets to campus and suddenly has a rapport with the “brothers” and their experiences. An upper class Chinese is thought to be better able to relate to anyone designated by the meaningless category “Asian-American,” which obscures the fundamental differences and histories of Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Thais, Laos, Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Hmong. The social capital that comes from education and wealth and that is used to define “white-skin privilege” suddenly has no value when it comes to the equally privileged ethnic “other.”
And don’t forget, no matter how poor or underprivileged, no white people have anything to bring to the campus diversity table in the eyes of diversity-mongers. Indeed, not even all the non-white ethnic groups get the same privileges given to those anointed as contributors to “diversity,” no matter how much their people have suffered. Punjabis darker than most black Americans don’t add “diversity” to campus. Armenians whose ancestors were slaughtered in the Turkish genocide, and who faced legal discrimination like real-estate covenants barring them from certain neighborhoods, don’t count either. Other groups like Italians or Poles faced discrimination and racist slurs in at the turn of 20th century, when General Francis Amasa Walker, president of M.I.T., wrote in the Atlantic Monthly that such dusky immigrants were “beaten men from beaten races; representing the worst failures in the struggle for existence,” possessing “none of the ideas and aptitudes which fit men to take up readily and easily the problem of self-care and self-government.” So pervasive were these prejudices that the 1924 immigration law effectively stopped such “unfit” people from coming to America. And obviously, despite their long subjection to anti-Semitism, exclusion, and mass-murder, Jews don’t add diversity either. Indeed, they’re fair game for campus prejudice and ethnic slurs. To the university, all these victims of historical oppression and exclusion based on their cultural differences are officially “white” with nothing to offer to campus diversity.
Pages: 1 2