Do the benefits of “diversity” apply at MIT?

A letter to the editor in today’s New York Times (top letter) unwittingly raises a new question about the so-called benefits of affirmative action programs. By applauding the SCOTUS ruling on the University of Michigan cases, one Douglas Zolkind notes: “In every class that I have taken at college, it has been enlightening to hear the varying perspectives of students of different ethnicities, races and cultures.”

The same theme that a variety of cultures enhances the educational experience was also propounded by counsel for the University of Michigan, John Payton, who noted: “When Justice Powell said in Bakke that it’s not too much to say that the Nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to the ideas and mores of students as diverse as this nation of many peoples, I think that statement was absolutely correct then. I think it is, you know, it has never been truer than it is today.” Maureen Mahoney in the law school case answered a question thus: “But your Honor, there is a compelling interest in having an institution that is both academically excellent and richly diverse, because our leaders need to be trained in institutions that are excellent, that are superior academically, but they also need to be trained with exposure to the viewpoints, to the perspectives, to the experiences of individuals from diverse backgrounds.”

Certainly it could be argued that a diversity of backgrounds has a beneficial effect when discussing issues of law, or literature, or sociology. But in what way does a diversity of viewpoints add to the study of physics or chemistry? How does the “black experience” illuminate the discussion of differential equations or civil engineering? Assuming that diversity of opinion is a goal worthy of overriding equal protection rights, isn’t the case for affirmative action weakened considerably for certain colleges like Caltech and MIT, or even certain majors?

The lawyers for the University of Michigan would certainly echo the major points of their own case and the various amicus briefs in that diversity helps to foster racial understanding and break down stereotypes. UM lawyer Payton noted: “Their education is much more than the classroom. It’s in the dorm, it’s in the dining halls, it’s in the coffee houses. It’s in the daytime, it’s in the nighttime. It’s all the time.” But what might be true for cappuccino slackers at Cornell or Marxist-studies majors at Berkeley may be entirely false for the hacks and nerds of MIT, who are famously anti-social and apolitical. When there is discussion, it is much more likely to focus on an engineering problem or a campus prank than on the cultural perspectives of “Othello.”

In the UM ruling, an undefined value was placed on the diversity of opinion brought about by affirmative action programs. But my feeling is that, at least for science and engineering types, the search for diversity does not rise to the standard of a “compelling interest,” enough to override the 14th Amendment.