IN THEIR never-ending crusade for "diversity," the academic, political and social elites are making America increasingly less diverse. Instead of respecting each individual as unique in his own right, the notion of "diversity" compels conformity with a pre-determined set of collective identities. The latest push to create an Asian-American Studies Program at the University is yet another example of this invidious effort to subvert individuality for group thought.
Proponents of ethnic studies argue that such programs foster diversity by presenting perspectives on subcultures that traditional American history classes ignore. To that extent, we can all agree with their motivations while still questioning their methods.
Unlike any other country, America's strength lies in our remarkable ability to assimilate people from all over the world. To appreciate America is to understand the complexity of its constituents. But if this understanding were so vital, wouldn't we want to integrate the study of American subcultures into the general study of America as a whole? If minority ethnic groups are to be a truly integrated part of American society, they must be an integrated part of the curriculum as well.
The fact is, "integration" has become a dirty word for the politically correct class. The metaphor of America as a "melting pot," which the liberal academic establishment still taught when I was in grade school, has all of a sudden, by some frighteningly arbitrary Orwellian process, become unacceptable. The politically correct term these days is the "tossed salad," whereby individuals are supposed to clutch on to group identities.
No matter how we define "diversity," ethnic studies programs do not accomplish it. Diversity should engage the entire student body so that different perspectives are presented within every classroom and course of study. In contrast, the pseudo-diversity of ethnic studies is to provide separate classes and programs, each presenting a particular perspective.
Still, ethnic studies proponents propose that these programs provide all students with curricula they wouldn't otherwise have. But to assume all students would take such classes, regardless of their race and ethnicity, is a pipedream.
In an interview, Student Council Rep. Tom Gibson, who introduced the Council resolution to create the Asian-American Studies Program, conceded that most students who take ethnic studies classes are those with correlating ethnicities. Yet, he contended that the percentage was "far less than I expected." When pressed, Gibson admitted he did not have empirical evidence because colleges and universities do not track the racial and ethnic composition of their fields of study.
In the absence of empirical data, we can rely only on anecdotal evidence and common sense. In my personal experience as an undergrad at Princeton, ethnic studies classes only attracted students of the respective ethnicity while directing them away from general interest classes, resulting in less diversity across the board. I have no reason to believe it would be different at any other university.
One could fault white students for not taking these classes. One could even say this is somehow fair because minorities feel similarly put off when they have to sit in classes that only provide the "white" perspective. But ethnic studies exist, by definition, under the explicit tinge of race, ethnicity and exclusion. Those of us who are inherently wary of such racial branding can be forgiven when we see Latino students kicked out of University events held for African Americans.
Ironically, the reasons underlying the lack of an Asian-American Studies Program are also the reasons why it would be harmful. Historically and sociologically, Asian Americans were the last to organize and participate in the political process, hence the last to be given a specialized curriculum. (This is not to say ethnicity-based politics is a good thing. As I explain later, it is not.)
While it oversimplifies things a bit, it is fair to say that this apathy stemmed in part from a belief that this was something Asian Americans simply did not do. Political participation does not rank very high among the so-called "Asian values," which Nobel-winning political economist Amartya Sen characterizes as "loyalty to family and obedience to state."
Since our collectivist society encourages people to blindly adopt whatever values are associated with their ethnicities, the establishment of an Asian-American Studies Program only reinforces this harmful subservience to group identity. That is to say, even if political apathy is no longer an "Asian value," there is still a whole set of perspectives and values alleged to be integral to group membership.
To claim to study Asian Americans is to perpetuate stereotypes of what Asian Americans "should" do or what they "should" think. All this thwarts action independent of purported group values, which is what has depressed their political participation in the first place.
"Identity politics" -- pandering to individuals based on group identities -- has caused polarization, resentment and even outright racial warfare across the world. Yet there are those who apparently think it's a good thing to have in education too. Oh, to be in academia
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe 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 | 4 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 | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
