A million little pieces

Spectator’s editorial on diversity at Columbia, “Diversity University,” comes at a time when the term is fraught with debate. A college affirmative action suit is about to go before the Supreme Court that has the potential to overturn its previous ruling from Grutter v. Bollinger. The Bollinger case, argued by our very own PrezBo, upheld affirmative action practices and allowed schools the option to take race into account in the admissions process. Now, a white student named Abigail Fisher has sued the University of Texas, claiming that she was not admitted because of her race. An analysis in the Times suggests that she is likely to win. If Ms. Fisher indeed wins her case, the consequences will transform affirmative action on a national scale and resurface questions about the meaning of diversity.

Amid the turbulence of Ms. Fisher’s lawsuit, the editorial called “Diversity University” argues that Columbia needs to strive as hard to effect socioeconomic diversity as it has racial diversity. According to the article, the experiences and credentials that appeal to admissions officers are tethered to socioeconomic class. High scores on exams require expensive tutors, it argues, and poorer students may not have access to squash lessons or travel abroad which is, admittedly, the fodder for college entrance essays. These complaints ring true, but nonetheless, Columbia already admits more low-income students than any other Ivy, with 15.9% of students receiving Federal Pell Grants. At its center, the point of the editorial is that socioeconomic diversity should be privileged as much as—if not over—racial diversity. In this light, I can’t help but ask: Where does the buck stop?

For one thing, does the admissions office seek out greater diversity in terms of disability? I see few students in wheelchairs around campus. Many buildings are not handicapped accessible, including the dorm where I live. Butler Library, one of the most vital buildings on campus in my humble opinion, only recently got rid of the stairs in front of its entrance in favor of a graduated ramp. For another example, consider what some call “diversity of experience,” a category separate from race, socioeconomic status, and physical ability. The term refers to people who have had different life experiences. Does admissions take this into account? If so, how on earth to quantify it? The way we understand diversity allows for so many incarnations that it cannot help but slip into vagary. And vagary, in this case, is the wedge that opens the door to controversy. It opens the door to all the people who feel slighted—the Abigail Fishers of the world.

I agree with the editorial that the goal of diversity has been misplaced, both at Columbia and elsewhere. As one of my professors astutely said in class, diversity is meaningless if it is not accompanied by a sense of commonality. There are countless ways to approach diversity. Ability, experience, socioeconomic status, race, gender, sexual orientation, and nationality are only a smattering of ingredients in a confused salad of key terms. To make matters worse, diversity programs such as Under1Roof and alternative orientations for students from certain backgrounds, serve to highlight difference rather than the positive qualities that we hold in common as Columbia students. We are taught tolerance and acceptance; surely these are not bad, but even as terms, they put others at a distance. If we privilege only the fact that people are different, we miss the opportunity to see how they are the same, to consider ourselves as a group. When I hear that Columbia is “atomized” or “isolating,” I cannot help but think that this view of diversity contributes to that feeling, or else is a symptom of the problem.

In his statement about the Fisher case, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund President John A. Payton said, “There is no longer any doubt as to the educational benefits of racially diverse students learning together and from each other.” This is familiar, the idea that all kinds of diversity serve to enrich a learning environment. The goal is for education to open channels of communication that help assuage prejudice and misconceptions through contact with the “other.” However, when learning is atomized, how valuable is diversity? Does this interchange really happen? I can’t imagine anything more impersonal than a lecture class where attendance and quizzes are taken on electronic clickers. Some of the most popular majors feature many of this type of course. Furthermore, even smaller classes promise to swell. As the Spectator reported, fewer professors than ever are willing to teach LitHum and CC, which are outside their departments of specialization. Our habit of “pigeonholing” in terms of diversity is reflected in the way we treat different academic pursuits. If we insist on wearing blinders at all times (my gender identity, my area of expertise, my self-contained plan for after graduation), “diversity” is not only useless, but hypocritical.

Cloaked in beneficent mystery, the admissions process pretty much is what it is. Columbia seems to be “diverse” by most measurable standards. The problem is that those standards are not relevant if the aims of diversity—such as mutual trust and a living sense of what we have in common—are not being met.

Amanda Gutterman is a Columbia College junior majoring in English. The Far Side of the Familiar runs alternate Wednesdays.