Isn’t It Ironic? Seeking Diversity without Diversity
Bayou Business Review, 12/1/98 p. 39
If you could not tell from reading my previous columns, I’ll let you in on something that is no secret at all—I am a free-market economist. For the most part, free and unfettered competition gives us better products at better prices than highly regulated markets. Free, unfettered competition of ideas produces better ideas—that is the whole purpose that our nation’s founders stressed the importance of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
It is also the purpose of universities. In higher education, we have long recognized the importance of protecting dissenting voices. Tenure is supposed to protect those who support unpopular ideas. It is only through dialogue, with representation of differing points of view, that we can have some confidence that our inquiries get us closer to "truth."
While there are some who disagree with free-market principles, I thought that free discussion open to dissent from the accepted view was a fundamental value in higher education. Then I found out about President Clinton’s Advisory Panel on Race. The panel recently held a hearing on diversity on college campuses as part of President Clinton’s "dialogue on race in America." The panel’s chairman, historian John Hope Franklin, said that only those who support affirmative action were invited to speak at the hearing, because he wanted to hear just from those who valued a diverse student body. He said that he saw no reason to include conservatives, such as Ward Connerly, who question affirmative action in university admissions. Mr. Connerly is a regent of the University of California who led the passage of Proposition 209, the ballot initiative that bans the use of race in admissions in California’s state universities. Mr. Connerly also happens to be black.
"The people whom we did invite had something special to say about how to make universities more diverse than they are," said Franklin. "The people in California that advocate Proposition 209, for example, are not addressing the subject of how to make the university more diverse." As a result, he said he wasn’t sure what people like Connerly could contribute to the discussion.
The President’s race panel wishes to make the university more diverse by giving the podium only to those who agree with the party line. But diversity of ideas, which is necessary for ideas to be honed by the competitive process, is not tolerated by the President’s panel, by those who speak of tolerance. At this point, the voice of Alanis Morrisette’s begins blaring in my head. She is sweetly singing, over and over, the words of her recent hit. She sings "isn’t it ironic."
When a White House official was asked about the makeup of the hearing, the offical replied, "We believe that we had a good group of people for what we were trying to achieve, to teach about the value of diversity." Alanis Morrisette sings ever more loudly, and now, a bit harshly.
Isn’t it ironic? And arrogant! Instead of using the hearings for dialogue, they are being used for monologue, lecture. Instead of using the hearings to learn more about race on college campuses, the hearings are being used to "teach" us all something. And after the U.S. left South Vietnam, the Communists of North Vietnam rolled in setting up re-education camps all over South Vietnam.
In ordinary markets, firms who fear they cannot compete, often attempt to keep competitors at bay by getting the rules changed so that their competitors (whether Chinese crawfish or Microsoft’s Internet Explorer) are not allowed to compete. Or else they try to give their competitors a handicap, in the same way a superior horse must carry extra weight. Firms who are not sure that their product is a better buy, wish to avoid the light of competition. In the same way, those who fear that their ideas cannot stand up, keep dissenters away.
If this were truly a dialogue on race, it would be monumental. Certainly, we need to have open and frank discussions about race, affirmative action, how we treat one another, why we mistrust those not like ourselves, and why we think those who disagree with us cannot be fair minded. We need to discuss how certain symbols of the past, of tradition, make us feel, as well as why certain traditions are to be valued.
Instead of having a dialogue on race, though, the President’s panel has chosen to have a monologue. If I wanted to hear a monologue, I would turn on Jay Leno. I know that I will be turning off the folks who are not open to criticism. They aren’t willing to face the challenge of competition. They just aren’t worth my attention.