Diversity.

As in “we value diversity in our student body.” One major ivy-league university (Cornell), for example, states that it “is committed to extending its legacy recruiting a heterogeneous faculty, student body and staff; fostering a climate that doesn’t just tolerate differences but treasures them [etc.]” You cannot now find a university that isn’t constantly and loudly devoted to diversity.

However, we can be sure that by this they do not—and should not—mean intellectual diversity. This should be obvious. For if we merely wanted to increase intellectual diversity, we would create classes and recruit subject matter experts in “How to Murder”, “Advanced Pedophilia”, “Creative Robbery”, “Marxist Theory”, or similar idiocies. You often hear conservatives ask to increase intellectual diversity on campuses; conservatives are arguing poorly, because they really mean they want to increase conservative thought.

Diversity, then, cannot mean intellectual diversity. There are other possibilities, such as proportional representation in sex, religion, country of origin and so on, but these are unlikely candidates because women are usually at least the same, if not a larger percentage, of the student population, and religion and country don’t elicit consistent interest. This leaves skin color (race), and possibly “sexual orientation”.

Therefore, to “increase diversity” usually means to “without regard to merit, forcibly manipulate the ratios of student/faculty skin colors so that it matches that of an (unstated) specific goal.” Of course, this implies quotas, which is to say, legalized discrimination based on skin color.