Pomona Can Be Intellectually Dishonest

For years I've complained that the Pomona community skirts tough political issues by taking a politically correct, mainstream liberal position without really engaging the topic at hand.

The University of Michigan case is a prime example.

Most Pomona students support Michigan's consideration of the race of applicants to its law school. When asked why race should be a factor in college admissions, they respond that diversity improves the intellectual life of a college. In fact, Pomona College itself signed an amicus brief in the Michigan case that argued the benefits of diversity to justify such admissions programs.

Let's assume that diversity does benefit institutions of higher education. That is a utilitarian argument: We need to consider race in admissions because it enables diversity, which helps the institution. Fine. But most opponents of such admissions policies do not object on utilitarian grounds. They tend to offer two objections: 1) considering race in admissions violates the contitution; 2) treating people differently because of their race is immoral.

I think that the Pomona College community is intellectually dishonest because it never attempts to address these arguments. Most Sagehens likely agree that an unconstitutional and immoral practice ought not be adopted just because it has utilitarian benefits. Or at least they would want to weigh the utility against the unconstitutionality and immorality. Yet when they argue about race in admissions, those same students respond to constitutional and moral objections only with a utilitarian justification.

I suspect that most do so unconciously, and that professors and administrators have never pointed as much out reflects poorly on Pomona. If you believe that considering race in admissions is justified, you should be able to refute the strongest contrary arguments. At Pomona, no attempt is made to do so.

If the Pomona community thinks that race based admissions are both moral and constitutional, someone ought to respond to contrary arguments.

But if it thinks only that such policies are utilitarian, the most interesting intellectual arguments on the admissions issue - how utility, constitutionality, and morality should be balanced - go unaddressed.

Sincerely,
Conor Friedersdorf '02