Prof. Barksdale writes: "...In any event, whether many Latinos think that they are white, whatever that means, is not relevant. even if true which I doubt. They, as a class, have unique experiences which contribute to the diversity of educational institutions..."
*** I could use a little enlightenment on what values are included within what I assume is a portmanteau word in the sense it carries a lot of baggage: "diversity." List of possible values include: Members one identifiable group sit in class with members of other groups. Physical proximity breeds respect when it doesn't breed disrespect. Self-segregation at lunch and in social settings is either okay, overlooked, or impossible to stamp out to date. Members of each group recite according to the beliefs common to that group. Members of each group fail to recite according to beliefs common to that group. Members of other groups conclude that their other-group classmates express typical views of their group, except when running not true to form. Members of all groups learn that there IS no view common to any identifiable group over the long term, except the desire to be treated equally and otherwise not singled out. Perhaps THIS is what student-body diversity most should teach. Perhaps THIS is what Justice Thomas is trying to teach. Intergroup friendships form which opens eyes all the way around. Discussions occur in and out of class which open eyes. Conflict among groups leads to demonstrations and protests and opens eyes. So much for the student contribution to understanding. Now for what the curriculum and the teachers provide: The professordom is diverse, promoting some educational value as well as role models; The professordom is not particularly diverse, but still provides an excellent grounding in various subjects. Early attempts at promoting diversity in this country, as I understand it, concerned "group" diversity. Example: The "balanced ticket" in NYC elections, where Irish, Italian, and Jewish names had to appear on the ballot, or the Democratic Party ballot at least. On the Republican side were the Roosevelts, the Rockefellers, for example, and other white Protestants. That was before 'other-than-white' members of the population existed, politically, except to be kept down. Now the definitional focus shifts from diversity as to 'group' identity to 'unique [life] experience' that justifies including, say Latinos, whatever THEY are, as beneficiaries of special efforts at inclusiveness. I can't think of a single group of people, from Eskimo to Gypsy, from Irish, to Italian, to Jew, from Puerto Rican to Mexican to Cuban, from Spaniard to Russian to German, from English to Scot, which does not meet the inclusive definition of 'unique [life] experience' sufficiently to warrant an official helping hand. Scrutinizing the word more or less strictly, "diversity" strikes me as being a term of convenience imported to justify special treatment of certain minorities whose members HAD been discriminated against after too much time had gone by to really set things right by benefiting the actual victims and punishing the victimizers for unjust enrichment. Is Ward Connerly, the U.C. Regent who led the Prop. 209 initiative against racial preferences in university admissions, public contracting, and employment, wrong when he says affirmative action rewards the wrong people and punishes the wrong people? Who are the right people and who are the wrong people today when it comes to receiving benefits funded in part by public money? Nicaraguans? Salvadorenos? Vietnamese? Koreans? Taiwanese? Hong Kongese? Mainland Chinese? Filipinos? India? Pakistan? Afghan? Iran? Iraq? Haiti? Perhaps we could choose up sides and pick just the ones we like! This is is one devil of a slippery slope, if you ask me, and why people like Richard Pryor and George Carlin were invented, I think, for the ironies abound once one enters the slide. It's probably also the reason that constitutional law words don't bear too much definitional analysis, or you'll get into one of those spiraling infinite regresses that'll drive you mad. Terms like 'strict scrutiny' and 'diversity' are imported to STOP the argument, not to fuel it, even though we all know that is exactly what such words provide the likes of us, fuel for further argument, and the story continues ad infinitum, one hopes. The rest of the country, however, I suspect glosses over such words, supplying a meaning satisfactory to the individual, thus avoiding rioting in the streets. The most inconvenient thing you could ever hope for is some ABSOLUTE definition, enduring for all time, of some constitutional law word or term. Because then we'd have to ignore it to get past it, wouldn't we, or jump past it on the back of some distinction we're great at creating. The more absolute and inflexible the injunction, the less useful it is to decide the NEXT case that comes up. Robert Sheridan [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [Original Message] > From: Barksdale, Yvette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 6/25/2003 9:08:25 AM > Subject: Re: Puzzles re: Grutter and Korematsu > > David Bernstein writes: > > "Is there anything in the Michigan opinions that explains why Latinos, who, as discussed in Peter Schuck's great new book on diversity, mostly consider themselves to be white, have mostly have arrived since 1965, and have high rates of intermarriage with whites, should be eligible for the same preferences as African Americans? " > > The quick answer is that the Michigan program was justified on diversity grounds, not past discrimination grounds (the Court explicitly rejected the intervenors defense of the michigan plan as a remedy for the university's past discrimination, concluding that the school had not justified the plan on that ground.) > > Latinos, as a class, have a diverse perspective because of their unique experiences in this country, and are underrepresented on our nation's campuses, and thus they are certainly within the state's compelling governmental interest in attaining racial and ethnic diversity. > > IN any event, as a factual matter, Latinos have, as a class, been subject to pervasive racial discrimination in this country for centuries, regardless of whether many or most are recent immigrnats. There is an awful lot of critical race theory scholarship documenting the history of discrimination against Latinos and its effects. A good reference to start with is the Perea, Delgado, Harris, and Wildman casebook Race and Races; Cases and Resources for a Diverse America (West 2000), which discusses the divergent experiences of racial discrimination of several groups, Afircan-Americans, Asian Americans, Latino -Americans and Native -Americans, and also cites to a lot of scholarship. > > In any event, whether many Latinos think that they are white, whatever that means, is not relevant. even if true which I doubt. They, as a class, have unique experiences which contribute to the diversity of educational institutions. I haven't read Peter Schuck's book, but I would be very suprised if he argued that Latinos were just another mainstream white ethnic group. > > yb > > > > > ********************************************* > Professor Yvette M. Barksdale > Associate Professor of Law > The John Marshall Law School > 315 S. Plymouth Ct. > Chicago, IL 60604 > (312) 427-2737 > (email:) [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ***************************************************** > > > > ---------- > > From: David Bernstein[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Reply To: Discussion list for con law professors > > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 10:17 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Puzzles re: Grutter and Korematsu > > > > Is there anything in the Michigan opinions that explains why Latinos, who, as discussed in Peter Schuck's great new book on diversity, mostly consider themselves to be white, have mostly have arrived since 1965, and have high rates of intermarriage with whites, should be eligible for the same preferences as African Americans? (I returned from Israel yesterday, and haven't had time to slog through the opinions). > > > > Professor David E. Bernstein > > George Mason University School of Law > > http://mason.gmu.edu/~dbernste > > blog: http://bernstein.blogspot.com > > *********************************************** > > My latest book, You Can't Say That! > > The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties > > from Antidiscrimination Laws, will > > be published in October > > *********************************************** > >
