I am sick of all this diversity crap. Really sick of it. It is completely shoved down our throats everywhere, especially in the workplace and at universities. It is like every institution feels they have to make a conscious effort to "prove" that they worship this god named "Diversity," and if somehow they don't scream about it loud enough, they are not good institutions.
So they always have a diversity page or disclaimer. Something that basically says "We are not racist, but we discriminate based on race." Yes, that is exactly what it says. When I cannot get into a school because there are too many whites and not enough blacks, that is racial discrimination. Call it affirmative action or diversity if you want, I don't care, it is racial discrimination as well.

I found this article online, it is 6 years old, it is from the San Francisco Chronicle of Higher Education. This is a pretty reputable publication, and I am pretty relieved to find that people outside of right-wing websites share my nausea with the diversity that we are forced to swallow, and pretend that we like, each day.

I agree with the author of the article below. I just don't care about diversity. Frankly, only a racist will care about the color of someone's skin. I could not care less! All of this forced diversity is completely unnatural. It's the same reason why I'll never allow myself to be set up on a blind date... it isn't natural. Certain things must flow naturally and cannot be forced. Anyway, I'll shut up now and let the author speak:

Why I'm Sick of the Praise for Diversity on Campuses

By ROGER CLEGG

We hear a lot about diversity these days. Colleges declare that they celebrate diversity and strive for a diverse student body. Companies hire diversity consultants and fall all over themselves in professing that diversity is good business.

It's hard to be against diversity. Who in America would speak out for uniformity or homogeneity, let alone monotony or sameness?

Nonetheless, I'm sick of diversity. Not because I have anything against non-European Americans in our colleges or workplaces. Let's be honest: Despite the unsubtle hints of the pro-diversity crowd, almost no one is arguing along those lines anymore.

The opposite of being pro-diversity is not being anti-diversity. It's being diversity-indifferent, and that's me. My T-shirt would not say "Diversity Sucks." It would say "Diversity -- Who Cares?"

Why am I sick of all the praise for diversity? Because it cloaks an agenda that is anti-merit, pro-preference, and anti-assimilationist.

As the Jim Crow era fades into the past, the rise of new discrimination to make up for old discrimination becomes increasingly hard to justify. So those committed to preferences based on race and ethnicity have had to come up with another approach -- one that has nothing to do with present or past discrimination.

For that, diversity is perfect. It's an excuse for preferences that can last forever. But if a touchy-feely rationale like diversity is compelling enough to justify racial discrimination, then anything is.

The diversity-mongers want higher education to make special efforts to achieve some predetermined racial and ethnic mix. The mix that would naturally occur if people were selected on their merits isn't good enough. In other words, colleges and universities should develop preferences -- that is, discriminate -- in favor of the underrepresented and against the overrepresented.

Diversity proponents give two basic rationales for their views -- rationales that, incidentally, contradict each other. The first one holds that a focus on diversity helps people see that race and ethnicity don't matter: Good students, faculty members, and administrators come in all colors. That makes sense only if the different individuals admitted or hired have the same qualifications. For example, if you're expecting to teach white students that black students are just as good academically as the white students are, you had better be sure that the black students that you admit really are on a par with the white students. Otherwise, you won't erode bigotry -- you'll reinforce it.

The sad truth, however, is that as colleges give pluses to certain races and ethnic groups in an attempt to achieve diversity, they are, by definition, selecting those who would not have been chosen on the merits. It's difficult to convince people that skin color and ancestry don't matter when everyone knows that you are deliberately considering them.

The other rationale contends just the opposite: We should make greater strides toward diversity precisely because of the differences among races and ethnic groups. Diversity is important, this argument goes, because those with different skin color and ancestry have different insights and perspectives as well.

Does anyone really believe that? Does anyone really believe, for instance, that all Asian-Americans, but only Asian-Americans, share certain vast quantities of knowledge? I'm prepared to believe that women will never quite understand some things about men, and that men won't ever understand some things about women. But I draw the line at "It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand."

Go ahead and try me, I say. I have a pretty good imagination. Most people who use the "you wouldn't understand" line aren't willing to try to explain it, because they know, deep down, that it doesn't make any sense.

Skin color does not equal ideas, and ethnicity does not equal experiences. The position to the contrary used to be called stereotyping. Moreover, since the invention of the printing press, it has not been necessary to meet people in order to learn their perspectives. And show me a college where most of the learning results from exposure to other students, and I'll show you an institution that isn't worth the tuition it charges. You will see more real diversity by working a summer at a blue-collar job -- and you'll get paid for it.

Speaking of the workplace, discrimination is not justified on the basis of diversity there, either. Having a particular color or ethnicity might be advantageous in some isolated circumstances: Perhaps a Mexican-American recruiter for a college will do better than an Anglo at attracting students from a predominantly Mexican-American high school. But not always. And for those who use such an argument, does that mean it's OK to give a preference to the Anglo woman so that she can recruit at Anglo schools? No, I didn't think so.

For most jobs, and most disciplines, it's irrelevant whether someone is of a particular racial or ethnic background. Do we ever speak of black mathematics, Asian chemistry, or Hispanic economics? Of course not. The situations in which one's ethnicity or race really makes a difference are few and far between. When we exaggerate the number of those situations, we engage in nothing more than sloppy stereotyping.

If colleges and universities lower standards to achieve diversity in admissions, diversity advocates will inevitably pressure those institutions to rig the requirements in grading and for graduation. After that, diversity advocates will move on to the college workplace and start questioning how institutions determine who gets promoted. And so on. All this in the face of the statutes that make it illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race or ethnicity.

Implicit in the praise for diversity is the notion that we shouldn't have rules or standards, and shouldn't require people from other cultures to conform to them. That is ethnocentrism, we are told.

Some folks have cultures that are louder and more obnoxious -- excuse me, less inhibited -- than others, and we must accept them all. Being on time and being polite are less important to some groups, you see. And heaven forbid that we would require people to speak English, let alone proper English, in school or college. That would have a disparate impact on people of some national origins -- which violates civil-rights laws.

Finally, we cannot expect individuals from some racial and ethnic groups to do well on timed, paper-and-pencil tests. They will perform better building something with Legos and displaying interpersonal skills, an approach used in an admissions test that some selective institutions are considering.

Such arguments are not only condescending, they're wrong. It's fine to eat different kinds of food and to have pride in one's ancestors. But in matters of language and our civic culture -- as well as, more broadly, our manners and morality -- assimilation should be the goal. An America that is multiracial and multiethnic, yes. Multicultural, no. E pluribus unum: Out of many, one.

To assert that we need more diversity is just another way of saying that we have too many members of groups that we'll have to start setting quotas for. Without a concerted push for uniform diversity (a nice oxymoron), many colleges will undoubtedly have "too many" Jewish students and "not enough" black students, "too many" Hispanic faculty members and "not enough" Asian faculty members. But that's not the end of the world. Diversity is one of those things, like falling in love, that works only when it comes about naturally. It cannot and should not be forced.

When we impose diversity upon an institution, we create resentment and stigmatization, break the law, compromise a college's mission, and tell some people that they aren't going to be admitted or hired or promoted, because they have the wrong melanin content or ancestry.

Whatever the dubious benefits of diversity, is it worth all that?

http://chronicle.com/cgi2-bin/printable.cgi?article=http://chronicle.com/free/v46/i45/45b00801.htm