The Diversity Myth:
Multiculturalism and Political Intolerance on Campus

David O. Sacks and Peter A. Thiel

Oakland: The Independent Institute, 1998; ISBN: 0-945999-76-3; Pp. xxix, 285, notes, index

Review © 2005 Branislav L. Slantchev

Be afraid, be very afraid. At least that's what Messrs Sacks and Thiel would want you to be. I mean, that must be the reason they wrote such a blatantly one-sided screed. The worst part about it is that (a) they are probably correct in a great many instances---at least at Stanford, the PC movement did appear to go collectively and irretrievably insane; (b) I would support many of the policies they advocate---I am a firm believer in the great books, as I explain below; but this book undermines the common cause by allowing its opponents to simply cry "bias!" and then refuse to engage the arguments. The book is probably useful as a catalogue of how dangerously stupid some university policies can be, but it's really light on analysis, and certainly obviously incorrect in some of its conclusions. In fact, Messrs S&T often advocate doing to others what they do not like others doing unto them. So, one must read this book with a grain of salt the size of Texas.

First, the good. That is, the bad. What I mean, the good this book does exposing the bad intolerant political correctness can do on a college campus, in this case Stanford. I will begin with the problem that rankles most: the abandonment of the Western Civilization requirement and replacing it with the multicultural CIV (Cultures, Ideas, and Values). I will not rehash the defense of the study of Western Civilization (Mr Ellis has done a wonderful job in his Literature Lost). Instead, I will offer a personal observation. I grew up in Bulgaria, and I went to school first in the Soviet Union (from 1980 to 1984), and then in my home country (from 1985 to 1991). In other words, I spent most of my school years studying what the Communist Party wanted me to. Education in the USSR and Bulgaria was (and still is) compulsory, all schools were public, and the curriculum was all approved for a proper education designed to produce the ideal communist (in my time, socialist) person with correct attitudes toward society, the state, and the future. In other words, I went to school under a Marxist regime whose avowed enemy was the West, and who had sought to supplant Western ideas and culture with its own progressive proletarian versions of history and culture. One would be hard pressed to imagine an ideology more hostile to Western Civilization than communist governments. Because indoctrination was part of official policy (no one made any bones about teaching the young the "correct" ways of thinking), and because the entire state apparatus was at the disposal of these governments, they could select precisely what students could read in these schools. So, the sixty-four dollar question: What did we read?

Mostly Western classics. Yeah, that's right. We read and discussed Shakespeare, Chaucer, Dante, Boccaccio, Shelley, Byron, and Poe (among may others). We read many Greek classics, including Homer, Aeschylus, Euripides. We read many Russian (pre-revolutionary) classics, including Tolstoy, Pushkin, and Lermontov. We studied Plato, along with Kant and Hegel (surprisingly, almost nothing by Marx, except the ubiquitous Communist Manifesto). Of course, we studied a lot of Bulgarian poets and writers, the most famous and revered of whom (like Botev, Vazov, and Debelyanov) all predated the introduction of communism, and were thus part of the decadent bourgeois past. We listened to, analyzed, and played Beethoven (and we knew he was not black), Mozart, and even Scott Joplin (again, in addition to our own traditional music). We studied languages: I went to an English language high school where all the subjects except Bulgarian literature, math, and music were taught in English, we also had to select another foreign language (in addition to Russian), and one could pick from Spanish, German, and French. There were many other language schools, as there were mathematical schools, as well as schools of natural sciences, and schools of classics. We studied all these things not to expose the racism, classism, sexism, imperialism, or whatever -ism of the authors, but to understand life, to ponder its meaning, and to identify themes common to all humanity that these authors so marvelously encapsulated in their works. This is not to say we did not read some communist propaganda, sure we did. It was mostly really bad poetry that stood apart from the rest so clearly that we used to make fun of it.

Why is this relevant? Because if even the most hardened opposition to Western Civilization can recognize the enduring value of these works, then surely the enemies of such a curriculum have to stop and think hard about what they are proposing, after all, many of them are dedicated Marxists in one guise or another. (Yes, I know what some will say: the Soviets screwed up Marxism, they failed to implement the "true" dogma. Still, I doubt that many would finger teaching Western classics as the major cause for the failure of the Soviet system.) In other words, students are deprived of something that even the enemies of the West should perceive as important. There is more to life than politics. There is something that Shakespeare can provide that dozens of Rigoberta Menchus cannot. There are thoughts that Plato can trigger that no amount of indigenous African poetry can. I will not even go into Mr Ellis' (correct) argument that it is ridiculous to repudiate the only culture that gave rise to the Enlightenment that in turn enabled the West to turn its gaze upon its own moral shortcomings and attempt to eradicate them. In the end, it seems to me that all such CIV-style "education" is both harmful and hypocritical. It harms students by keeping from them a world of ideas that can give meaning to their life (again, I am sorry to harp on this, but there's more to life than Viva la Revolucion!) It is also hypocritical because it does not really expose them to other cultures: to learn properly about another culture, you have to learn its language, you have to read the works it has produced, you have to study its history. All of this requires time and effort that far exceeds the cursory glimpse of a specially-selected polemic about the evils the West has inflicted on said culture.

Now, back to the book. Messrs S&T provide a chilling account of the abandonment of Western Civilization requirement and its replacement with CIV, along with a plethora of stunningly useless courses. A course on the history of black hair-styles? If I were a parent of a Stanford student, I'd sue the University for teaching such $40,000/year trash! The authors also correctly identify the stifling of true diversity, the one of ideas, in favor of conformity of thought as long as there exists diversity in race, gender, or whatever division the PC movement happens to like. This truly is a problem, as one can see from reading about numerous other cases (see Mr Hentoff's book I refer to below, among others.) There are some sadly funny incidents (that is, they are funny because they are ludicrous, but they are sad because they are true). The howler has to be the "Beethoven was black" case, but there were others, like the feel-good as long as you're not white and rich class discussions. The authors also expose the evils of identity politics and its chilling effect on dissent, even when it comes from within the ranks of the main group a person is supposed to identify with. There is also a bit about the culture of blame and victimization, but it is not carefully worked out: the authors make it sound as if there's a conspiracy to present certain groups as victims for political ends. Whereas I am sure that some people do that, I also think (personal observation) that many (most?) people who support the PC movement are sincere in their beliefs. In other words, they are not faithful disciples of Machiavelli as much as they are misguided do-gooders who see themselves building a better future and rectifying past evils. Perhaps I want to believe that this is the case because it automatically opens the possibility for dialogue: perhaps minds can be changed if we deliberate more, if we analyze better, if we try to be a bit impartial. If not, if it is all a cynical political game, then it has already been lost: let the culture wars continue, let blood be spilled!

Now, the bad. Take, for example, S&T's claim that "the university is also willing to tolerate excesses by members of the homosexual community that would never be tolerated in any other group" (p. 101). The evidence? In certain public bathrooms, holes were drilled in the walls between the stalls to "facilitate 'anonymous bathroom sex'." The University has failed to plug these holes because it is "apparently unwilling to anger the members of the homosexual community" (p. 102). Well, maybe. But let's just think about this for a second. I am not gay, so I cannot speak for gays in general, but I am willing to bet that most homosexuals probably do not relish sex in the toilet. (Yeah, I know that some heterosexuals like the idea too, but I still doubt that it is that common. It's just... well, not conducive to having fun.) So, assuming that gays also like to have sex under normal circumstances, the question becomes why they feel the need to resort to the bathroom to arrange for it. Could it have anything to do with intolerance to their sexual orientation? Why can't they openly approach someone like a heterosexual would? Regardless of what the authors want to imply (e.g., that gays are promiscuous, that they are willing to bother people in the toilet to get it, etc.), the one clear inference is that gays at Stanford do not feel safe enough to behave like heterosexuals can. If that's true, then failing to plug the holes is the least the University can do for them.

Continuing on (still p. 102), we hear that apparently the University encourages all sorts of sexual liberation, and removes all moral constraints on behavior. Examples? Coed showers in one residence. (Is that true? Where do I sign up?) Showing "X-rated movies, including the sadistic Salo, which is advertised as one of the most disturbing films ever made and features torture and child molestation." Well, a little porn never hurt anyone, and I don't care what Catharine MacKinnon says about it. But Salo? I am sorry to burst the authors' bubble here, but this film is regarded as a classic in many respectable circles. Yes, the Pasolini masterpiece is deeply disturbing, but that's because it depicts the excesses of fascism, not because it condones them. There's plenty of extremely graphic scenes are are designed to make the viewer flinch, they are purposefully offensive and unsettling. That may be too much for certain prudes, but I see nothing wrong with it. It's art. If you don't like it, don't watch it. You have no business implying that I should be barred from watching it too.

Next, the authors bash the condom distribution program. (Hey, what's this preference for males, where are the free contraceptives for women?) Messrs S&T are unhappy that "the university promotes casual sex and an assistant dean refuses to recognize alternatives" (pp. 103-04). The alternative, of course, is abstinence, which has got to be the most unrealistic proposition the moral police has made since forced castration was deemed too unpopular to work. The authors also reach the ominous conclusion that the policy has not worked because it has not had "a positive impact on the level of AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, or abortions at Stanford, relative to American society at large" (p. 104). Well, that's probably true. But only because the authors are using the wrong comparison. The relevant metric is not American society at large but rather comparable university populations. Students are not like the average American in many, many ways, their lifestyle probably being the most obvious. Yeah, the abortion rate at Stanford may be twice the national average, but that may simply reflect the fact that female students are unlikely to be very conservative and/or poor, and hence unlikely to be hampered by religion/money when they decide whether to have an abortion. The rate of unwanted pregnancies shows that we have not educated students enough in contraception, not that condom distribution has resulted in more sex. (Oh, since when does providing free condoms cause people to have more sex? I must have missed that in high school. My recollection was that having sex required a willing partner first, and a condom (if any) second. The problem for most people, if memory serves, was satisfying the first necessary condition. If things have changed, I want my high school years back: condom in the pocket, and, ladies, here I come!) Students probably have more sex than the average American, so absent better protection, girls will end up pregnant more often. And AIDS? Well, one thing we can do is stop forcing gays to have sex in toilets. I am not sure what to make of the other part. After all, the incubation period for the HIV virus is very long. So I don't know if distributing condoms in 1987 would have had any impact on AIDS rates the year after.

I will stop now with the examples because I trust I have made my point: the authors provide selective evidence, and they also resort to moral claims to attack positions they do not like. Unfortunately, this just won't do: I am all for attacking policies based on good analysis (which is absent here), and arguing about logic or about aesthetics. But banning films, sex, and what not is just way too far out there. The authors would do good to ponder what free speech really entails. I would recommend Mr Hentoff's excellent book Free Speech for Me, But Not for Thee on this subject.

Finally, the ugly. Messrs S&T use somewhat under-handed techniques to pursue their arguments. For example, we are treated to a lengthy part 7 (pp. 197-221) that is all about the iniquities of (former) Stanford president Donald Kennedy. How the guy cheated the government, how the university cheated the government on his watch, how he cheated the university, and so on and so forth. All of this does not seem to relate to the issues the authors discuss in any way. At least that's what I would think. But the authors want me to think something else: they want to deluge me with indignation and force me to conclude that Mr Kennedy was guilty of many crimes of moral turpitude. This I will grant, when it came to money, the guy apparently loved la dolce vita, even if that meant siphoning research money for walnut and cherry paneling in a sailing yacht. Fine. But then the authors want to imply that because Kennedy did all these unethical things, it follows that any and all policies he promulgated are automatically suspect. In particular, his pursuit of PC-approved agendas must also be incorrect. Well, I am sorry, but this simply does not follow, and it does not matter how much I want to agree with the conclusion. It is also totally dishonest to argue in this way: after all, the authors are appealing to the reader's sense of outrage rather than to his logic; precisely what they blamed the PC movement of!

Messrs S&T also come perilously close to approving public interference in university life. Perhaps right now it may be expedient to let the sunshine in on some of the most idiotic policies. Perhaps the outraged public will force universities to teach Western Culture. Perhaps the government can discipline the president and the administration. Perhaps the courts can abolish certain rules and force changes on campus. Perhaps all of it will further the authors' agenda. Perhaps in the short term it will be "best" for the majority. But at what cost? Exposing the university to political pressure is the last thing any reasonable academic and student should want! Yes, I do realize that some (many?) within the university want to use the political tools, but we must resist that no matter what the goals are, no matter how lofty the moral claims, no matter how much we agree with what they are trying to accomplish. The government/public/courts provide a truly blunt instrument, and once it's approved for use, there's no telling just who will employ it and for what purposes. The universities have to make a commitment to the pursuit of knowledge, and for that they have to be insulated from politics. Knowledge is often painful and uncomfortable for many. Let's not tinker with this splendid isolation. We have problems, but we have to solve them on our own. Bringing in the outside world is a recipe for disaster. Today the government may enforce affirmative action. Tomorrow it may decide against it. And next year it may want everyone to take a loyalty oath... who knows for what ideology.

May 11, 2005