The March 22 column “Diversity education creates division, not understanding,” asserts that the common justification for studying diversity is to combat racism. In fact, the three most common arguments in favor of studying diversity are not based on racism, but inequality:

1) It is a corrective for past inequality and oppression.

2) It is a corrective for present inequality, much of which derives from past inequality and oppression.

3) Diversity in the classroom or the workplace is not only a positive good in itself but conducive to greater social goals (a more capable global workforce and a more cosmopolitan environment in which people engage with others of different backgrounds and beliefs).

In addition, although the value of contemporary diversity policies (e.g. affirmative action) may not seem like such a big deal to the writer of the commentary, those with a longer view remember well that the behaviors that preceded and produced diversity, like segregation, Jim Crow and lynching, were deadly serious.

As a direct result of such group polarization before the mediating effects of diversity education, 68 Fortune 500 corporations, 29 former high-ranking military leaders and 28 broadcast media companies filed amicus briefs in support of the University of Michigan’s affirmative action programs in the recent Supreme Court cases of Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003).

Andrew Sullivan coined the term “‘South Park’ Republican” to describe young Americans represented by the TV show’s pernicious adolescents, who never miss an opportunity to ridicule multicultural sentimentality about Native American wisdom and the rainforest.

When they mock their mincing gay teacher, they are shipped off to a “Death Camp of Tolerance,” where they are forced at gunpoint to produce non-sexist artifacts. Other characters include a pro-choice activist who wants to abort her eight-year-old son and a menagerie of preachy Hollywood star like Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn, who are shown as puppets of North Korea (literally).

Ironically, such caricatures are made possible by the diversification of culture responsible for the rise of cable television channels like Fox.

Finally, at the end of two generations’ debate about racial and social equality, Americans emphatically approve of diversity and affirmative action policies, even as they passionately oppose any race or gender “preferences” that would make those programs actually work. Nevertheless, we should be careful about tone and logic when discussing diversity education, lest crucial issues become too closely associated with cartoons like “South Park.”

Sidner Larson

Associate Professor

English