An Ivy League college is considering two applicants. One is an upper middle class black boy from Fairfield County, Connecticut. He played on his high school basketball team and ran track in the spring. His older brother goes to a different Ivy League college. The other is a middle class white boy who grew upon a farm in Idaho. He was an Eagle Scout, and wrestled on his high school team. His older brother is in the Marines. Let's say they got A minus averages and 1950 on their SATs, and both are decent but not great athletes.
We don't really have to ask which kid would get in ahead of the other.
But which one would bring more actual diversity to an Ivy League college? Which one has a background which would be rarer in those environs? Which one would be more of a breath of fresh air at, say, Yale? Which one could expose his classmates to a truly different background, and set of attitudes?
Obviously, the kid from Idaho. Yet any of the Ivies would, for their purposes, consider the upper middle class black kid from Fairfield County more "diverse."
The implication of this view of diversity is that blacks and whites are diverse purely because of their races. But if we're diverse, where exactly do we diverge?
What are the differences? Could our diverse DNA possibly express itself in differences in average IQ, testosterone level, propensity to violence, sprinting ability, or ability to create and maintain a civilization?
That's not possible, you say?
But if you don't care to acknowledge any divergences, isn't the very concept of diversity rendered meaningless?
Also, aren't the benefits of "diversity" usually touted most strongly by the same people who claim that "race is only skin deep," or, alternatively, "there is no such thing as race?"
Isn't that a contradiction?
Perhaps some college administrator would care to elucidate.