Get PJ Media on your Apple

The Logical Outcome of Illogical Non-Discrimination Policies at Universities

Schools like the University of Pennsylvania twist themselves into pretzels trying to pretend they admit students "without regard" to race or sexual preference.

by
John Rosenberg

Bio

March 4, 2010 - 12:00 am
<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Not only does Penn ignore its stated non-discrimination principle in practice, but it proudly announces that it does so. Thus there were two separate Penn briefs supporting the University of Michigan’s use of race in admissions, and Penn itself, as Lee Stetson, the director of admissions, told the Philadelphia Inquirer in 1998, practices race conscious admissions. “We continue to be committed to affirmative action in admissions,” he said, “what we prefer to call being conscious of the background the student comes from.”

It is impossible, of course, to practice race-conscious admissions while remaining faithful to the official policy that requires all university decisions to be made “without regard” to race. The same impossibility would apply with regard to sex and sexual orientation, would it not?

Apparently activist gays, like other aggrieved minority groups, want to be treated “without regard” to what makes them aggrieved … except when they don’t. Indeed, there is so much confusion over the concepts of equality and discrimination that it is not clear where confusion stops and hypocrisy begins. For example, regarding the  controversy over whether the Dept. of Defense should be barred from interviewing law school applicants on campuses because of its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, I asked:”Does Yale Favor Equal Opportunity Only For Gays?

The question was prompted by Yale Law School’s non-discrimination policy, which states:

Yale Law School is committed to a policy against discrimination based upon age, color, handicap or disability, ethnic or national origin, race, religion, religious creed, gender (including discrimination taking the form of sexual harassment), marital, parental or veteran status, sexual orientation, or the prejudice of clients. All employers using the school’s placement services are required to abide by this policy.

All employers? Hardly, for if Yale (and Harvard, which has a similar policy, as do other elite law schools that objected to Defense Dept. recruiting) excluded “all employers” who discriminate in hiring, it would have to exclude all law firms, corporations, universities, and other organizations who give preferential treatment to some applicants, and hence impose a burden on others, because of their race and ethnicity. Yale et al. manifestly do not do that.

The dean of the Yale Law School at the time of the recruiting controversy was Harold Hongju Koh, subsequently appointed by President Obama to be legal adviser to the Department of State. After the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the attempt of Yale and other leading law schools to bar military recruiters, Dean Koh issued a statement saying that he looked forward

to the day when the government gives all of our students — without regard to their sexual orientation — an equal opportunity to serve our country by working in our nation’s armed forces.

The question thus inescapably arises; do Yale, Harvard, Stanford, et al. favor “without regard” equal opportunity only for their gay students, and  preferential treatment for their black and selected Hispanic students?

And now the University of Pennsylvania must be asked that same question with regard to undergraduate admissions. As Inside Higher Ed reports:

Eric J. Furda, dean of admissions at Penn, characterizes the effort there not as something special for admitted gay applicants, but as doing for them what the university already does for many other groups of students.

Does Penn do for not-yet-admitted gay applicants what it does “for many other groups of students”? That is, does it now engage in what might be termed “sex preference-conscious” admissions that parallels its race conscious admissions?

If not, why not? Is “without regard” equal opportunity good enough for gays but not for blacks and Hispanics? As I asked in my December PJM article linked above, does Penn believe that different groups deserve different kinds of equality, reminiscent of the different levels of “scrutiny” with which the Supreme Court looks at different kinds of discrimination?

Commenting on Penn’s new gay outreach policy, Jacques Steinberg writes in the New York Times (Feb. 26) that it

is expanding the boundaries of its so-called affinity outreach — a Penn engineering student might reach out to a high school senior interested in engineering, a black alumnus might call on a potential applicant who is black — to include applicants who might be gay.

Might be? Wouldn’t it be important to know? In any event, given the deep “differences” by which “diversity” preferences are justified, how could Penn possibly select a white gay man to “reach out” to a black gay admitted applicant, or a black lesbian to an admitted gay Hispanic man? Or does it assume that all gays — men and women; black, white, Asian, and Hispanic — are all fungible, and all different enough from their straight peers to justify lumping them all together for special treatment?

The more fundamental question raised by Penn’s new policy is, or should be, not only where but when higher education’s fixation on difference-based “diversity” will end.

UPDATE: There’s outreach, and then there’s outreach…

Now the Chronicle of Higher Education reports, based on an article in the Billings Gazette, that some students and faculty at Northwest College, a public two-year residential college in Wyoming, have objected to a recruitment letter college president Paul Prestwich sent to about a thousand Mormon high school students mentioning the college’s “remarkable opportunities” for LDS church members and mentioning his own membership.

The letter was part of the college’s enrollment-management plan to forge ties with local churches and community groups to increase diversity and recruit students, Mr. Prestwich told the Chronicle.

Northwest College, according to the Gazette article, “does a wide range of targeted marketing, and had planned to send similar letters to students of other faiths.”

Laci Kennedy, a freshman member of the Student Senate, was quoted as objecting that “school recruitment efforts should not focus on students’ religious background. …”

Why not? Does religious faith provide less “diversity” than race or sex?

UPDATE II: Outreach overreach…

Northwest College has announced that it will no longer recruit students based on their religion. Presumably Penn is still recruiting students based on their sexual orientation.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page
John Rosenberg blogs at Discriminations.
Click here to view the 20 legacy comments

Comments are closed.