In the last issue, there was a small sidebar regarding the SBA Diversity Panel two weeks ago. Unfortunately, it did little to report on the heated discussion that actually occurred there, which more closely resembled the dialogue on race reflected in the letters to the editor on the opposite page.
I had written a letter that week as well, but it didn’t make it in before the deadline. However, with a controversy over Rush Limbaugh encroaching on my football coverage and Californians voting on the issue of colorblindness this week, it still seems relevant to revise my letter and resubmit my thoughts.
The letters in response to Eric Wang’s article were all heartfelt defenses for the existence of ethnic clubs, but they didn’t really address the real question raised by Mr. Wang: Do ethnic clubs help or hurt the pursuit of a colorblind society?
Mr. Wang’s arguments closely mirror those of the proponents of California Proposition 54, whom believe that blindness is a requisite step to colorblindness. However, I think this belief confuses the end with the means.
In a truly colorblind world, nobody would treat you differently because of your race, and minorities wouldn’t think to congregate in clubs. This doesn’t mean that getting rid of ethnic clubs is a solution to the problem. It’s like a simple LSAT question: Given that there would be no ethnic clubs in a colorblind world; does the absence of ethnic clubs necessarily mean we are in a colorblind world?
Logic games aside, I would argue that ethnic clubs are actually a great asset towards achieving a colorblind society and that getting rid of them would be a critical mistake if colorblindness is the goal.
Progress on social issues is often accomplished by groups of people who care about those issues coming together for a common cause. If we were going to look for people at the law school whom care about diversity and colorblindness, the audience of the SBA Diversity Panel two weeks ago could be a good representative sample.
There was a discussion at that panel about how non-minorities often don’t think they can come to events put on by ethnic clubs, exacerbating the self-segregation problem. However, the Diversity Panel was sponsored by the SBA and an effort was made to address aspects of diversity other than race. Despite this attempt to appeal to a broader public, a quick look around the room revealed an audience that was predominantly racial minorities.
This bit of empirical evidence reflects the simple fact that racial minorities generally care more about diversity and race issues. That’s not because minorities are more virtuous individuals, but simply because for them, the issues are more personal; the pursuit of a colorblind society will affect their families and their children.
The Civil Rights movement was led by African-Americans. Women’s Suffrage was led by women. Our present-day goals are more mundane, but if we want to make progress as fast as possible, bringing people together who share an idiosyncratic incentive has proven to be successful strategy.
Although it’s not the primary goal of APALSA or BLSA, ethnic clubs are a good basis for getting together people who care about race (which is actually the primary goal of SUPRA). Criticizing these clubs is criticizing the very people who are willing to do the most for the cause that Mr. Wang is promoting.
[Printed in the October 10, 2003 Law Weekly]
[See also the September 26, 2003 Law Weekly]
[See also the September 19, 2003 Law Weekly]