Without question, the University is diverse. No, diversity is not the many different colors of Polo shirts the boys wear or the unlimited styles of Vera Bradley purses the girls carry. The University is diverse because of the unlimited variety of ideas, values and people living and learning in its academic community every day. That is all that diversity is -- variety.
It seems, however, that the University only regards diversity as a variety of skin color. President John T. Casteen, III, in his Convocation speech,celebrated the University's diversity by preaching the statistics that make up the Class of 2006, declaring what percentage were women, African-American Hispanic and so forth. These numbers give the University this to brag about: We are a top-ranked national school that appeals to many students of different backgrounds. However, that positive note aside, a group's diversity should not be determined by its physical appearance but rather by its content -- the variety of its ideas, values and people.
Categorizing students by ethnicity is not only a poor means for judging diversity, it's inaccurate. During the aforementioned speech only a segment of the class make-up was listed, including African-Americans, Native Americans and Asian-Americans. There's more to diversity than these specific ethnicities noted. More groups were left off the list than were actually named.
If these unlisted races are not mentioned in speeches praising the University's diversity, it sends the message that they're sub-par because they're not listed as a special faction of the University community. Additionally, take into consideration those who don't fall into any category. Students of mixed races are not recognized by the concrete categories. Their limbo between listings also presents them as less important than the students who are of a "pure" heritage and easily can fill a statistical slot, which of course, is not the case. As in the days of segregation and Jim Crow, students are verbally separated by their race into one group or another. This University must choose whether it will be color bound or color blind.
By defining our diversity as our ethnicity, the University has chosen to be color bound. Additionally, by separating the student body into racial and sexual classes, it makes these factors the most important defining characteristics. Students are being labeled not by who they are, but by what they are. That goes against everything our generation has ever been taught about race and tolerance.
If the class is going to be compartmentalized in University speeches to show diversity, it might as well be done by some deciding factor that is more than skin-deep. For example, at Convocation, the Class of 2006 could have heard how many first years believe in a higher power, are pro-life or pro-choice, or have dreams of being the president of the United States. These numbers would have at least described something a little more substantial about who the members of the class are as people, rather than just what the chances are that the person next to you is black or is a member of a Native American tribe.
And that is what really matters -- that we look beyond ethnicity. Yes, the University should be proud that some students' ancestors came over on the Mayflower or that others came to the United States last year. They should also be proud that students speak Korean, Spanish, Armenian or English at home.
But at the same time, the University should not group -- and thus define -- students themselves by these traits. Students should be defined by who they are -- by their values, their beliefs, their loves and their passions.
Every time someone is characterized by their race or ethnicity, the idea of diversity becomes divisive. It does nothing more than to build the walls dividing people higher and lead to more racial self-segregation. Self-segregation leads to nothing but continued strained race relations. It also destroys students' chances to branch out to other cultures. In 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed that one day his four children could "live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Every time the color of a student's skin is used to show diversity, the color of his or her skin is what is important, not the content of their character.
So, maybe next year the University can find some new statistics with which to define the student body. Maybe our introduction to the University can be more than the buzzword "diversity" -- maybe it can be about what unites a class and what is diverse and unique about us as individuals. And they can start with some common ground: 100 percent are Wahoos.
(Maggie Bowden is a Cavalier Daily
viewpoint writer.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
