Pandering for Diversity

            As we move into the debate phase of presidential election politics, Democrat aspirants to the Oval Office are honing their vote-getting skills, particularly their ability to pander to every voting group.  Pandering becomes identity politics in action. It’s what you do when you have no positive ideas: you stoke the envy of every group that does not enjoy the advantages of social, cultural or financial privilege.

            Listen to Bernie Sanders as his promises of equality drip with contempt for the “rich.”  Was Beto O’Rourke’s switch to Spanish at the debates anything but a transparent appeal to Hispanic voters? And what's the latest count of candidates who have done a pilgrimage to New York to kiss Pope Al Sharpton's ring?

            Identity politics has infected academia as well. Harvard administrators are under fire for adjusting SAT scores in its pursuit of a “diverse” student body. In the process it has clearly discriminated against Asian applicants whose SAT scores are consistently higher than applicants from favored groups.

            While an overwhelming percentage of Americans say that college admissions should not be based on race or ethnicity, colleges are using “adversity scores” to boost admissions for applicants from poor or crime-ridden neighborhoods, thus devaluing the academic achievement of students with higher SATs. All in the name of diversity.

            Virginia Tech this year held separate graduation achievement celebrations for Jews, Muslims, American Indians, Blacks, Hispanics, and LGBT.  Am I the only one who thinks this is taking diversity a little too far?  What exactly does academia seek to achieve by pandering to diverse groups? Politicians at least have a clear objective: votes.