Discrimination in the name of campus diversity is not acceptable https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-discrimination-in-the...

Discrimination in the name of campus

diversity is not acceptable

Debra Soh

Debra Soh writes about the science of sex, politics, and culture, and holds a PhD in
sexual neuroscience research from York University

The concept of “diversity” has such a lovely ring to it, conjuring up romantic notions
of being forward-thinking and living harmoniously in society. But what if diversity is
being used as a way to justify discrimination?

On April 4, documents obtained by a group suing Harvard University demonstrated

that the university’s admissions process has been discriminating against Asian
applicants for decades.

Story continues below advertisement

As discussed in a complaint filed by 64 Asian-American organizations in 2015,

affirmative action requires the SAT scores of Asian applicants to be hundreds of
points higher than applicants from other ethnic backgrounds. It has reached a point
where mixed-raced Asian applicants will choose to hide their Asian heritage when
they apply to Ivy League schools.

The case echoes discrimination documented by former YouTube recruiter, Arne

Wilberg, in a recent lawsuit against its parent company, Google. In the suit, Mr.
Wilberg alleges that Google implemented diversity quotas that favoured female,
Hispanic or black applicants, and discriminated against white and Asian men. Mr.
Wilberg contends he was fired for challenging these illegal practices.

Both lawsuits speak to a larger trend of how it’s become acceptable to promote racial
discrimination in the name of equality. The justification behind this approach stems
from the theory of intersectionality, a term coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, an
American civil-rights advocate, almost 30 years ago. At its crux is the belief that
women and minorities experience systemic injustice, and that those who are not
members of minorities are considered to have privilege.

This ideology has since permeated the mainstream, and the area of education more
specifically, through exercises such as the “white privilege checklist.” (In a video,
Buzzfeed conducted a similarly themed “privilege walk”). Questions such as “I can
turn on the television … and see people of my race widely represented,” and “I can
choose … bandages in ‘flesh’ colour and have them more or less match my skin,” allow
respondents to determine the amount of societal privilege they own.

Because Asian-Americans don’t fit into the narrative of being oppressed by virtue of
one’s skin colour (particularly in the realms of education and income), maintaining
the status quo following from this line of reasoning requires additional mental

1 of 2 2018-04-26, 8:08 p.m.

Discrimination in the name of campus diversity is not acceptable https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-discrimination-in-the...

gymnastics.

Instead of acknowledging that “white privilege” doesn’t exist, those supporting

diversity initiatives will use terms such as “underrepresented minorities” to exclude
Asians from the equation, thereby preserving the idea that racial minorities require
intervention in order to be successful.

These policies don’t come without a cost, casting aspersions as to whether a person
was granted admission based on competence. They don’t help to improve underlying
tensions around race, nor do they encourage resilience or the belief that an individual
can overcome difficult life obstacles.

Story continues below advertisement

If academic institutions were truly interested in helping underrepresented groups,

they would want to understand what is driving gaps in academic achievement,
beyond the false notion that all differences in society are due to oppression.

If universities are concerned with fighting intolerance, the last thing they should want
to do is offer preferential treatment to students based on qualities unrelated to merit.
In fact, a 2011 study in Psychological Science showed how prejudice-reduction
policies can actually produce greater bias in individuals, particularly if they feel they
are being pressed into changing their attitudes. These strategies produced worse
outcomes than if no interventions had been implemented at all.

What is racist is placing such an emphasis on immutable characteristics a person had

no say in obtaining. As an Asian woman, the way I look has no bearing on the way I
think, and to assume otherwise is close-minded and patronizing.

Those championing diversity mandates claim to be operating from an honourable

position, but they are quick to knock down a racial group the minute it no longer
furthers their charitable goals. The point of affirmative action is no longer about
helping marginalized individuals, but to socially engineer an outcome that wins
points for appearing fair-minded and equitable.

2 of 2 2018-04-26, 8:08 p.m.