I am writing to address the presence of fraternities on campus and the question of whether they are a part of Wesleyan’s “diversity.” Diversity in an unqualified sense cannot be exclusionary. A set of opinions that has universal agreement can never be as diverse as a set in which there is significant and real conflict between perspectives. If our goal is unqualified diversity, then the presence of fraternities on our campus is preferable to their absence. However, this is not the real issue at hand.
The question that digs to the heart of the matter is not whether the presence of an apparently different and conflictive viewpoint assists diversity, but rather what sort of diversity we wish to foster.
I am writing this not because I have any wish to take a side on the current debate regarding fraternities. My real impetus is my frustration with the tossing about of the word “diversity” without any real effort to engage with what we intend to mean when we use such a word. If we are to hold something as a virtue and invoke it in the name of a cause, we must be the most vigilant and deliberate in using that concept. Without it, a vital and powerful concept stops being something of real value and becomes instead a bludgeon and a threat used to beat back the ideas of those who lack the moral high ground or the popular opinion.
At stake in the presence or absence of fraternities is not a matter of what is likely to advance a goal of unqualified diversity. Unqualified diversity is never and has never been the virtue that we hold high. When we consider the “diversity” we wish to foster and nurture here at Wes it is not one that validates every perspective merely by merit of its existence. We do not and will not tolerate the presence of racist ideologies or prejudicial perspectives. (This is not to suggest that we have successfully uprooted all forms of these thought, merely that we agree to their objectionable nature.)
To suggest that “diversity” can do without the presence or perspectives of any group is altering diversity from an unqualified state to one that is subservient to a previous set of values. The more carefully we can define the values we intend to elevate and foster (the more we can talk about what kind of environment we want, what set of perspectives we want to include and—most importantly —why a specific defining of diversity is superior) the more capable we will be of having a progressive and fruitful dialogue as opposed to scrambling attempts to inculcate our own values by subsuming them under a universal virtue.
Leave a Reply