Diversity of Thought Not a Pipe Dream
By Ashley Berry
Contributing Writer

Peter Douglas’ article “Diversity of Thought is Like a Fish Getting Hit by a Bicycle,” quotes me as contending that “diversity of thought is the only kind that should matter,” on Monday Night Live. This is all fine and good, and I certainly stand by what I said. What I don’t stand for is a journalist who then proceeds to comment on what my words mean, without taking the time to ask me to explain them. Mr. Douglas asserts: “diversity of thought, as this group means it, refers only to political thought.” The other panelists and I were on the radio program to comment primarily on political thought. However, for Mr. Douglas to draw the conclusion that those of us who spoke do not care about, as Douglas puts it, “the nature of reality, the roll of science in society, or whether or not you consider elephant dung arrangement a valid form of art,” I find “particularly repugnant” (this is how Mr. Douglas characterizes some of my views). In case Mr. Douglas is curious, (though obviously he isn’t, or he would have asked me), I am very much interested in all those things, expect maybe the elephant dung.

Mr. Douglas then goes on to say: “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.” This statement is a complete misrepresentation of what I and the other panelists sought to convey. I am the first to say that classifying yourself on the right, the left, or even the center can mean a myriad of things. That is why I am involved with the Pomona Conservative Union and not with the Pomona Republicans. While I am personally not a fan of the labels that are placed on conservatives these days (neocons, paleocons, and the religious right to name a few), I would say that there are huge differences between Pat Buchanan, John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ronald Reagan, and President George W. Bush. There are certainly just as many different classifications on the other side of the political spectrum. I do not think that having equal numbers of students on each side is how a school achieves diversity. I am not asking for a “conservative quota,” but when a school like Pomona did not have a single balanced discussion last year on the war in Iraq or a single professor willing to stand up and say that he or she supports this president, when Bush’s nationwide approval ratings at the end of last school year were in the low 70 percent range, I have to wonder if Pomona is really displaying any true diversity.

Mr. Douglas also asserts that “people who look at the world from the so-called right tend to see those that disagree with them as liberals, without bothering to explore the infinite variety of thought that exists under that headline, and vice versa.” I spent a week this summer at the Young America’s Foundation National Conservative Conference. There was not a single issue discussed that did not have ardent supporters on both sides; we discussed everything from gay marriage, Bush’s tax cuts, abortion, and the war in Iraq, to immigration and the death penalty. Many viewpoints were always represented, yet every single person in that room considered him or herself on the right.

But let me get to the heart of the issue that I think Mr. Douglas is trying to address, and the question he should have asked me before he chose to quote me and to write his article. What does diversity of thought mean, and why do I think it is more important that any other form of diversity? Diversity of thought doesn’t mean simply political thought, and anyone that asserts this is indeed naïve. What is naïve, though, is the notion that anyone with a different skin color brings diversity to this campus. Do people from different economic backgrounds, different social backgrounds, and different religious backgrounds bring diversity to this campus? Of course.

While I agree with Mr. Douglas that saying someone is Buddhist means a lot, I do not agree that saying someone is Black, Hispanic, or Asian necessarily does. Just as there are whites who believe in everything under the sun, there are people of other nationalities who have a plethora of different viewpoints. More often than not, people tend to associate a particular race with a particular pattern of thought, and that is unfair and condescending to those groups. For a more informed article, take a look at “Students of Color Used to Enhance the White Experience” by Michael Rush, which shared the page with Mr. Douglas’ article in last week’s TSL. Mr. Rush included facts and statistics in his article, rather than making blind blanket statements about conservatives. Mr. Rush notes, “Additionally, neither genotypes nor phenotypes are indicators of culture, which is the real objective in diversifying the student body.” He also asserts “although Pomona has constructed a somewhat racially diverse student body, it lacks socioeconomic diversity within those racial groups—an issue that may be related to students of color not socially or racially identifying with their checked box.”

The one part of Mr. Douglas’ article that I do agree with is his statement that “the true problem with the political climate at Pomona is not a lack of diversity, but apathy.” I don’t know if this is the true problem, but it is a problem. I do think that the default position at Pomona is apathy: a default moderate-liberal apathy–but apathy nonetheless. We’ve been bred not to want to offend anyone, and as a consequence, no one speaks up. I do not, or at least I try not, to bitterly complain about the “liberal Pomona mob.” Rather I recognize that there is a dearth of diverse ideas being passed around Pomona at the moment, and I am trying to act on my beliefs rather than just complain. So I will continue to be involved with both the Pomona Conservative Union and the Pomona Student Union because I think that both of these groups are making steps in the right direction.