Toward a Deeper Understanding of the Diversity Rationale

Abstract

How did “diversity” come to occupy such a key position in public discourse, particularly concerning education policy? Given the widespread recognition of diversity, is there an intellectual tradition or philosophical orientation that informs its application to education? And, based on the traditions examined, what is gained and lost by focusing on the diversity rationale? This article examines the legal history of using the diversity rationale to justify affirmative action and the philosophical foundation of the ideal of diversity. This foundational analysis not only adds a new direction to the scholarship on the educational benefits of diversity but also illuminates the tensions associated with affirmative action in general and with this rationale in particular. The authors aim to influence educational practice in a direction that well serves a multi-racial/ethnic democratic society

Growing C-D-R (Cedar): working the intersections of interest convergence and whiteness as property in the affirmative action legal debate

“…Though diversity appears to be the key to constitutional higher education admissions policies, racial diversity is starting to mean very little in the diversity analysis. The courts' use of the diversity rationale has skewed the debate over race-conscious policies in a direction away from discrimination, inequality, and social justice; thus race and equity are less and less a consideration with regards to diversity (Moses and Chang 2006). Therefore, underrepresented racial minorities must find other ways, besides race, to set themselves apart from other college applicants because it does not look like white privilege is going anywhere anytime soon.…”

Educational diversity and learning leadership: a proposition, some principles and a model of inclusive leadership?

“…It is not, however, possible to achieve this only by means of assimilation or an attempt at eliminating differences or reducing diversity in the learning community. The suggestion is, consequently, for a need to actively engage with diversity and complexity in the educational context (Vincent 2003;Shah 2006;Moses and Chang 2008). Research, to date, would suggest however that, in practical terms, the typical response to managing educational diversity is one involving a forceful assimilation into a dominant national culture (see Bagga-Gupta 2007;Johansson, Davis, and Geijer 2007;Leeman 2007).…”

Breaching the Colonial Contract

“…7). Moses and Chang (2006) point out that in the Sweatt decision, a type of diversity rationale was indeed at work. The authors describe that in Sweatt, Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, who wrote for a unanimous Court, held that a law school cannot be effective when it is isolated from the "individuals and institutions with which the law interacts," and students should not study in "an academic vacuum" (p. 7).…”

“…Moses and Chang (2006) trace the origins of this legal concept to the cases Sweatt v. Painter (1950) andMcLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950). In Sweatt, the question before the Court was whether a Texas law school could deny admission to blacks, but the Court held that the "law school must admit Blacks because there were gross disparities between that school and the separate law school for Blacks" (Moses and Chang 2006;p. 7).…”