That’s the exact argument made by Jonathan Haidt and Lee Jussim in a recent Wall Street Journal piece titled “Hard Truths About Race on Campus” that references recent pushes by universities to meet student diversity demands with initiatives such as adding chief diversity officers.
Haidt, a professor of ethical leadership at New York University and Jussim, a psychology professor at Rutgers University, argue that these efforts won’t actually do much to increase diversity or improve race relations on campuses and that they could have the opposite effect of the intention. Rather than separating students by demographic, colleges should focus more on how to get the disadvantaged students on the same footing as those who have always had more educational resources. The authors mention the U.S. Army and how, instead of using affirmative action, the organization provides more in-depth training to minority and women officers to prepare them for promotions.
Are colleges getting it wrong with diversity programs? Do diversity programs, with their grand initiatives, prevent the organic blending of cultures, races and genders that could take place on campuses?
That answer is complicated of course. On one hand, diversity programs instituted at universities have paved the way for the initiatives in workplaces and social programs. Affirmative action, an initiative originated on college campuses, has helped 5 million minorities and 6 million women (White and minority) move up in the workforce, according to the U.S. Labor Department.
But on the other hand, if what we are truly striving to have is a melting pot, are programs that highlight demographics and essentially section them off really healthy for college landscapes?
To be clear, I’m not calling for a stop to diversity programs as they are necessary to provide higher education opportunities for all. I’m asking instead that colleges and universities examine the intentions of their programs. All institutions of higher education with diversity initiatives must:
