Welcome, White students of the Class of 2009!
Welcome to this fine institution that has turned itself into an instrument for changing the way you think about life and yourself and society and America.
Welcome to this school that has turned itself into a tool for the transformation of society.
Welcome, everyone. Welcome to the struggle.
In a well-functioning society, people could make ordinary decisions about ordinary things and follow all the usual rules and end up living nice lives and making positive contributions to a marginally better future for everyone. Specifically, in this hypothetical well-functioning society, you could come to a college like this and pick your courses according to your interests and according to official requirements and, after you graduate, you will be reasonably prepared to participate in public discussions about public issues. You would, in other words, end up with a liberal education -- an education appropriate for a free citizen of a republic. In a well-functioning society, even to think that the faculty and administration had in mind anything other than that would be an almost sure sign of paranoia.
I've been following race, gender and gay politics in our universities for almost 20 years. I can assure you -- there are exceptions, of course -- but I can assure you that many of the faculty and almost all of the administrators of this university most certainly do have something in mind other than that you become an educated free citizen of a democratic republic.
There are revolutions from above. There are revolutions from below. This university is trying to pull off a revolution from the side. It is trying to mold your thoughts and habits, not so that you can contribute to the continuation of a reasonable, free society, but so that you can participate in the transformation of this society into . . . something else.
I don't know exactly what that "something else" is. We will return to that question, but first let me give you a short history of -- quote -- "diversity" -- unquote. Justice Louis Powell's opinion in the Bakke decision is the text that subsequent court opinions have used to justify deviations from laws whose plain language requires that, for example, applicants to colleges be considered without regard to race. Powell claimed that diversity in a student body would contribute to a "robust exchange of ideas." He took that phrase -- "robust exchange of ideas" -- from an earlier court decision. Powell believed that diversity would enhance opportunities for informal learning in the course of quote -- "unplanned, casual encounters" -- unquote. A great deal of what goes on in colleges and universities these days goes back to the Bakke decision, one way or the other. You should read it and maybe even take a course where it is discussed. But for now, remember those two phrases: "robust exchange of ideas" and "unplanned, casual encounters."
The history of "diversity" actually goes way back to Harvard University in the late 40s. They didn't want a student body consisting entirely of the sons of New York City lawyers, or whatever. They wanted guys from all over the country, guys from farms, working class kids and so on. Race didn't come into play until later.
The Bakke decision came down in 1978. In the early '70s, the Medical School at the University of California at Davis reserved a fixed number of slots for minorities. Allan Bakke, a white guy, applied to that school twice and was rejected both times. So he sued and eventually the case went before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled in favor of Bakke, ordering that he be admitted to the medical school and declaring that fixed quotas for minorities were not acceptable. Powell's opinion -- he was only writing for himself, not for the majority of the court -- allowed a bit of wiggle room for the sake of racial diversity. No hard quotas, but if you do some kind of juggling act, mixing in race with various other factors, while clicking your heals together three times, or whatever, then considering race was OK.
By itself, I don't think that the Bakke decision would have been all that dammaging. But, in combination with the earlier Griggs v. Duke Power, it has facilitated serious distortions in our institutions of higher education. In Griggs, the Court ruled that if a written test has a "disparate impact" on people of different races applying for employment or promotion, then the employer or would-be employer must rigorously prove a "business necessity" for the test. Of course, some of our fellow citizens who are Black are highly intelligent. You're sure to meet a few of them over the next four years. But the average intelligence of Black Americans is noticibly less than that of White Americans. The average IQ score for Black Americans is 85. For White Americans, the average is 100. Some other ethnicities have averages above the White average.
The simple fact is, if a job requires some level of intelligence, any test that measures it will necessarily have a "disparate impact." So, for practical purposes, because of Griggs, employers avoid giving written tests to guage the general intelligence of job applicants. But an employer can make a reasonable guess about a person's intellectual abilities by noting which college he or she graduated from. If you graduate from Harvard, you are probably more intelligent, at least in academic sorts of things, than a person who graduates from Oakland Community College.
In addition, major businesses need a certain number of minority employees in management and technical positions in order to avoid charges of discrimination. So they hire Black people with degrees from Harvard or Michigan or whereever and they are reasonably well assured of getting people who can function on the job as well as contribute to racial statistics pleasing to federal bureaucrats. That's why they say they need "diversity," which is garbage, of course. They don't need "diversity," they need a college and university system that will facilitate the selection of the brightest minorities who can be put into the service of corporate America. A guy named Steve Sailer has written an excellent article about this for the VDARE.com web site.
The corporate perspective is easy enough to understand. When we try to figure out what university administrators are up to with all this "diversity" stuff, beyond further ingratiating themselves to big business, things get weird. Now we are back to the "something else," the revolution from the side I mentioned earlier. We are back to the fundamental question, what kind of society are they trying to prepare you for?
I've thought about this question over the course of many years and I really don't know the answer. But I do want to encourage you to keep this question in mind over the next four years, especially when you encounter political type things -- assemblies, orientations, rallies, required courses, racial incidents and official responses to them. You might even want to go out of your way once in a while to check some of these things out. For example, if you read this early enough, on September 5, when most of us are celebrating working people on the traditional American holiday known as Labor Day, the University of Michigan will be having a Day of CHANGE to celebrate diversity. Most of you will have much better things to do on Monday, but maybe a few of you could get together and see what this stuff is all about.
The day involves three events. I'll read you a few sections from The University Record Online article that describes them, just to give you the general flavor.
The first event is called, "In the spirit of CHANGE: Toto We're Not In Kansas Anymore." Yes, that's the full title. Here is the description: "Faculty, staff and students are welcome to attend the lecture, which will help participants learn how the human spirit can build coalitions, not blame, among groups who never thought they had anything in common with one another." Really, that's what it says right in the University's official newspaper.
The next event is called, "Community Plunge: Creating CHANGE Through Action." Here is the description: "This event will feature ways incoming and returning students can get involved in service and social action during their college experiences. Participants will be able to visit homeless shelters, and help with environmental clean-up and food preparation, among many other activities." You won't want to miss that one. I remember when I came here in 1966. The first thing I wanted to do was visit a homeless shelter!
The final event is called "ExCHANGE--Community Dialogues." It will, to quote from the article, "provide chances for students to engage in conversation with others participants. It will be an opportunity to talk about cultural similarities, differences and what diversity at U-M is all about." It's two hours long and where else could you have such a ginger-peachy time on Labor Day. Oops, I mean Celebrate Diversity Day.
We can and should laugh at the infantile new-age leftism of all of that stuff. We should recall the phrases of Justice Powell. If the university has to have a special day to "provide chances for students to engage in conversation," we might wonder whatever happened to Powell's concept of "unplanned, casual encounters." And would you really hope to have a "robust exchange of ideas" with someone who wants to tell you "how the human spirit can build coalitions, not blame?"
By the way, if you really want to do something like spend some time helping out at a homeless shelter or whatever, that's a fine thing, that's commendable, I have nothing against it. But why is the university putting such a big, hairy political spin on ordinary acts of kindness and decency? Why are they even in the loop at all? Just a question, but it's a question that's directly related to the big question: What kind of society are they preparing you for?
The article I've been quoting from might give us a clue. It mentions something called The Provost's Committee for Education for a Diverse Democracy. "Diverse Democracy" is the name the University of Michigan gives to that "something else" I mentioned at the beginning of my talk.
The big question can be restated: What exactly is this "Diverse Democracy?" Will it require proportional representation of all groups in all sectors of society? Will it involve forced integration? Will it involve so-called reparations? Will citizens be required to attend touchy-feely intergroup dialog sessions? If you criticize a minority group or if you question the "value of diversity," will you be thrown in jail for a hate crime? Will you be sent off to a re-education camp?
Sure, I'm being dramatic here, but the question remains. What is this Diverse Democracy? What kind of society are they preparing you for? And why?
You have four years to grapple with questions like that. You need to study not only the material assigned in your classes, you need to study the university itself. Is it behaving according to its proper character as an institution within a larger society, or is it trying to usurp powers that do not belong to it? Is the university trying to serve society or is it trying to rule society?
The university wants your social activism to consist of things like praparing food and going to homeless shelters. I encourage you to engage in real social activism. Understand the power structures and challenge them. I encourage you to build coalitions -- not with groups you never thought you had anything in common with -- but with each other. Because you all have important things in common: You have a serious need to understand what is really going on. You need to organize to challenge the frauds who have corrupted this once fine institution of higher education. And you need to organize politically to serve your interests as White people.
I thank you for listening and, again, I welcome you to the struggle.
Copyright © 2005
If you wish to link to this article, try copying and pasting:
<a href="http://m3peeps.org/03/waws2009.htm">Welcoming Address to the White Students of the Class of 2009</a>
[Go to index for Web Log, Volume Three]
[Go to m3peeps.org home page]