Diversity of Thought is Like a Fish Getting Hit by a Bicycle
By Peter Douglas
Staff Writer

“There is no right wing or left wing… there is only up wing and down wing” –Bob Dylan, “11 Outlined Epitaphs”

On a recent Monday Night Live radio show discussing the political climate at Pomona, several students talked at length about how conservative views are not receiving enough attention or respect on the Pomona campus. These students brought up the idea of increasing “diversity of thought” as a means of countering this situation. One student, Ashley Berry ‘06, went so far as to claim that, “diversity of thought is the only kind that should matter.” The idea of diversity of thought, meaning an increased number of conservative voices on campus, is one that is becoming increasingly popular with conservative students, and I have heard it discussed in many forums from private conversations to meetings with potential college presidents. The concept of diversity of thought, defined as such, however, is both absurd and hypocritical, and to suggest that this is the only valid form of diversity is particularly repugnant.

First off, it is important to note that “diversity of thought,” as this group means it, refers only to political thought. Those clamoring for such diversity do not care what you think about the nature of reality, the role of science in society, or whether or not you consider elephant dung arrangement a valid form of art. The only thing that counts in this new diversity is where you stand on issues like the War on Terrorism, affirmative action, or tax cuts. And there are only two places you can stand, on the left or on the right, and diversity will only be achieved when there are equal numbers on each side, striving in perfect equilibrium. Yet political thought is not just a simple see-saw with a well-defined center. It is a three-dimensional amorphous blob that is constantly changing depending on which part of the spectrum you are viewing it from. One person’s centrist position is another person’s radical ideology. People who look at the world from the so-called right tend to see those who disagree with them as liberals, without bothering to explore the infinite variety of thought that exists under that headline, and vice versa. Pomona College is made up of a vast array of individuals, not a pair of political blocs, and to suggest that Pomona students think homogenously on any subject, including politics, is both insulting and ignorant. True diversity of thought is alive and well at Pomona, and any attempts to instutionalize it will only confine and limit political discourse to a false dichotomy of right and left.

Second, to compare this diversity of political thought to other forms of diversity, let alone to claim that it is more important, is like comparing apples and razorblades, and then saying you like to eat one more than the other. The forms of diversity that Pomona and other colleges strive to achieve in selection of students and faculty, whether they be racial, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic, religious, or financial, are concrete aspects of people’s lives that have determined their experiences and, in turn, influence how they experience their time at Pomona. To say that a person is Buddhist or Chicano/a means vastly more than to say they are conservative or liberal, both because these political terms are vague and because religious and ethnic identities pervasively affect all aspects of ones’ life, including but not limited to political thought. In addition, political affiliation is a part of a person’s identity that can, and probably should, change over time, as different experiences change the way one views the world. The other forms of identity mentioned above, however, are not so fluid and for almost everyone remain a permanent part of their lives. These forms of identity also often bring with them social inequality, inequalities that concentrated efforts at maintaining diversity can hopefully help remedy. Being a conservative, despite what many students would have you believe, does not carry with it any ingrained inequalities, either here at Pomona or in the world at large. Increasing the diversity of concrete forms of identity at Pomona would do much more to magnify true diversity of thought than any standard based on who one voted for in the last election or some other political litmus test. Thus, Berry’s claim that “diversity of thought is the only form that matters” is nonsensical; diversity of thought is only possible as the result of other forms of diversity.

The idea of diversity of thought, in its current use, is based on a false conception of both political thought and diversity. It attempts to squeeze all political thought into two over-simplified categories, while misunderstanding the role and value of other forms of diversity. The true problem with the political climate at Pomona is not a lack of diversity, but apathy. If more students took the time to reflect on and then discuss politics on a regular basis, we would all be surprised at the range of political thought found at Pomona. For those feeling politically alienated, the answer is not to bitterly complain about the “liberal Pomona mob” but to find outlets to express their ideas and also to listen to those of others. The newly founded Pomona Student Union and Pomona Conservative Union are good steps in the direction of re-invigorating political discourse at Pomona. Framing this in terms of diversity of thought, however, is a ridiculous exercise that will lead us nowhere.