Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Diversity Essay

Rate this topic


Alethiometry

Recommended Posts

But 80% of that staff is going to hold racial diversity as a value. I don't think a 100 word essay is meant for you to demonstrate writing ability. You can't demonstrate much of anything in 100 words.
That's irrelevant, since they aren't told to filter out people with politically incorrect views (they will be warned not to do that). They can use the fact of a person being "racially diverse" as a selection criterion, but your essay can't change your race. As to whether a 100 word essay can show anything, u ken like lurn lots if somebudy writs a stupid esay what they doan no speling good they just write how its good too be divers cuz society kneads diverness and without a diverse soceity we wudnt be America liek America waz made by a diverse bunch of guys like Lincon an Washington, and that was just 53 words. Imagine what an impression you could create with 100.

The secret is to write a 2000 word essay then cut out the garbage, so you'll have 100 words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Okay, yes you can tell if someone is a complete moron if they write something similar to what you just did. But you can't tell much about how well someone structures their writings.

And I, for one, would not be willing to take the risk of offending the political sensibilities of professors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that combining the two replies of Groovenstein’s and D’Kian, is also a consideration….For example you could write about how a student from Japan (sort of implying that they may be Japanese) has helped you with understanding so and so…and another student/friend from Africa(sort of implying that they may be African) you had a conversation with that about, or helped you with (this is along the lines of Groovensein’s view on the diversity of the knowledge/intelligence)…another student from New York has agreed with me that meeting individuals of diverse races is only important, because it demonstrates and reaffirms just how irrelevant race is, or genetic lineage is to a person's character, ability, or intelligence(D‘Kian)(Rand’s “Racism”, VoS). Purposely diversifying colleges racially, is purposely subordinating their individuality to their genetic lineage….something to that effect. All of this can be done within 100 words.

Heck, they may even turn your application down, if you were to write a piece that you would think that they would want to hear…They would say, “Oh, well this ones for diversity, AA, and so forth. So if we turn her down, she wouldn’t be upset by it, but may even be glad that we had done so.” Only I don’t think that you’ll ever fully know the reason why you were not accepted. But you get the idea. So much for softwareNerd saying that you don’t owe "any degree" of truth in this essay…”you do not owe the truth here”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But 80% of that staff is going to hold racial diversity as a value. I don't think a 100 word essay is meant for you to demonstrate writing ability. You can't demonstrate much of anything in 100 words.

You can show that your willing to drop your principals for the sake of them choosing you for the right for you to spend YOUR money with them. Or you could show right off the bat that it is you doing the school you will attend and if they want your money they will not try to stifle your mind BEFORE you even choose to attend their University.

Put differently, make it known you make the choice to attend their University if and only if they pass your qualifications, NOT the other way around. Do THAT and right off the bat you will set yourself off from 99.999 % of the people who just respond with a baaaaaaa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can show that your willing to drop your principals for the sake of them choosing you for the right for you to spend YOUR money with them. Or you could show right off the bat that it is you doing the school you will attend and if they want your money they will not try to stifle your mind BEFORE you even choose to attend their University.

Put differently, make it known you make the choice to attend their University if and only if they pass your qualifications, NOT the other way around. Do THAT and right off the bat you will set yourself off from 99.999 % of the people who just respond with a baaaaaaa.

ack It makes me sick to even think that one would have to feel like they would have to compromise on an application essay.

I don't think you do here, though. Don't let them pigeon hole you with their narrowmind view on diversity. Sure, you know i think it is kind of neat you get to meet people from all walks of life. But it sure isn't really necessary. You certaintly don't need to give them some sort of cookie cutter essay for AA. You can still "play it safe" I think, and not betray your Objectivist philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So much for softwareNerd saying that you don't owe "any degree" of truth in this essay…"you do not owe the truth here".
Just to clarify, not once have I said that she should write an essay that agrees with any particular view on diversity.

To summarize, my advice is: do what it takes to get in.

Edited to add: Alethiometry, after getting all this feedback -- some of it contradictory -- are you any closer to deciding how you will approach it?

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can show that your willing to drop your principals for the sake of them choosing you for the right for you to spend YOUR money with them. Or you could show right off the bat that it is you doing the school you will attend and if they want your money they will not try to stifle your mind BEFORE you even choose to attend their University.

Put differently, make it known you make the choice to attend their University if and only if they pass your qualifications, NOT the other way around. Do THAT and right off the bat you will set yourself off from 99.999 % of the people who just respond with a baaaaaaa.

And if your plan backfires, you have to settle for your second choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if your plan backfires, you have to settle for your second choice.

And you'd better hope that they have no diversity essays in store either, but then again - there are many occupations where college degree is not a requirement, as long as you don't mind serving people fries that is... Softwarenerd's analogy with witholding the truth from the criminal is spot on. One should never deny reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys You got it reversed. What matters is if you make a choice for yourself NOT if someone else makes any given choice for you. The plan can't "backfire" because it's not a "plan" so much as it is an attitude for approaching life.

Not only that but I think the chances are much higher that you will end up serving other people if you ATTEND college since you are usually going to get a job to work for someone else NOT yourself. I didn't finish college and don't plan to (at least in the silly traditional way), and I run my OWN business and only "serve" myself when it comes right down to it.

P.S. I tried responding to this earlier and was in the middle of it when I dumped a bunch of coffee on my laptop's keyboard....NOT GOOD. Long (and boring!) story short I'm now using a standard PC keyboard with my laptop. Now that's NOT an ideal situation; especially since I just got my wireless home network up and running today. B)

Edited by EC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only that but I think the chances are much higher that you will end up serving other people if you ATTEND college since you are usually going to get a job to work for someone else NOT yourself.

If this is meant to suggest a causal link between attending college and working for an employer, then it is ridiculous. If it is not, then it adds nothing.

I run my OWN business and only "serve" myself when it comes right down to it.

While that's fine if that's what you want to do, do you envision the world as a place where every business is owned and operated by only one person? If not, some of those businesses are going to need people who "serve."

And since when is being an employee a condition of servitude? Both parties agreed on terms, right? Both are free to walk away under the terms they established? Does any contract turn one into a servant? Are you a servant when you order things for your business?

My condolences to your keyboard. He was a good keyboard, full of life. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was answering their questions to me using their words. It's not servitude to work for someone else, but it is much more productive to work for yourself or someone who funds you and allows you to work without supervision then it is to work as an employee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is eventually making x more dollars just because you attended "PC" University worth the direct attack on your self-esteem you would incur when you blatantly violate the virtue of honesty and integrity when your life or values are NOT on the line? If you attended University Y that couldn't care less about your "views on 'diversity'" but you end up making slightly less money in the end isn't that worth not compromising your integrity?

This assumes that her motive for attending this particular institution is financial. The initial post does not mention that.

And maybe University Y doesn't ask about your views on diversity, but has some other philsophically offensive policy. See below.

If it were me I would write a short letter to the school explaining that any University that MAKES me explain why "diversity" is a value can NOT possibly offer me any long term value and that by choosing to MAKE me do so they have lost a potential customer and should re-evaluate their admitance policy.

Not really. You can realize that attending ANY of these schools is a complete waste of time and resources like I did.

What of any university that doesn't make you explain anything but has the same garbage-filled diversity classes and policies? What of any religious university? What of any university with any philosophically offensive policy, position, press release, or bylaw? In other words, what of any university that is not philosophically perfect? In other words, what of going to a university at all?

The profession you chose may not require a formal education. That's wonderful, and I congratulate you on your success. However, I think you're way off base in ripping on anyone who's gone to college. Our government has greatly reduced the quality of education that is available. Furthermore, many professions require certain levels of education to be attained. For example, if one wants to be lawyer, nearly every state requires that one go the "silly traditional way" to get a bachelor's degree and a juris doctorate.

In sum, I think you are wrong to posit that attending a school with certain bad policies is always a bad decision. Though there are many ways in which this world needs to be changed, we still have to live in it.

On a lighter note, how's your wireless network? Wireless internet was something on which I decided to splurge a couple years ago, and I have absolutely loved it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Just to clarify, I am going to this university to get a chemistry degree. My opinions about diversity will not be questioned by the university outside of the application. Here's my rough draft for the essay. Let me know what you think!

"I value diversity of knowledge, ability, and experience. Over the past three years, I have served on the executive board of the fencing club at ASU with a diverse group of people. The unique talents that each officer brings to the club has a strong,positive impact on our ability to attract and educate new members. Our club is better because of the diverse abilities of our officers and members. I think diversity of knowledge among individuals in any organization is very valuable."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't envy your position; I finished writing application essays several months ago. I think what it is morally permissible to write depends on whether the institution you want to attend is public or private. If it's private, then writing what you don't believe is wrong (due to the betrayal of one's principles, as others have noted). If it's public, then they have no right to ask you such a question, and you'd be lying to protect a value (from indirect force).

Ultimately, however, I think as long as you write well, there shouldn't be too much of a problem no matter how much the admissions people disagree. I wrote an essay praising Leonard Peikoff and egoism, and got in to most of the schools to which I submitted it. Similarly, I got into a school where my interview degenerated into a (mildly) heated argument over US foreign policy in the Middle East. Write well, and it probably won't make that big of a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me know what you think!
Do you mean "ability" or "skill"? Since "ability" can mean "competence", the first sentence could be read to mean that you value people who are good at what they do and also people who are inept.

If it's public, then they have no right to ask you such a question, and you'd be lying to protect a value (from indirect force).
Well, that's true but by the same token they also have no right to ask you any questions or to require you to submit transcripts of letters of recommendation, or to pay tuition. What you're saying really just comes down to the fact that there is no right to be provided an education by the government. So the real question is, is it right to attend a govenment school.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I disagree with the last post somewhat. I don't think it's wrong to attend a government school (as long as you advocate abolishing them), because the government steals one's money to pay for such a school and creates artificial shortages in the education market in doing so. Likewise, given the fact that there are government schools, they should grant admission based on merit, and therefore it is not improper for government schools to require transcripts or letters of recommendation. Government racism, on the other hand, should be illegal, and there is no reason one should have to cooperate with racist laws. There is therefore nothing wrong with lying in the essay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Likewise, given the fact that there are government schools, they should grant admission based on merit, and therefore it is not improper for government schools to require transcripts or letters of recommendation. Government racism, on the other hand, should be illegal, and there is no reason one should have to cooperate with racist laws. There is therefore nothing wrong with lying in the essay.
I thought you were making the argument that since government schools don't have a right to exist, then anything associated with such schools is not "by right", but I see that that isn't your argument. Although this leaves me wondering what point you werre making about indirect force. But anyhow, I have to ask now, why do you say that public schools don't have a right to require a "diversity essay" when private ones do? Since I don't assume automatically that asking for such an essay is a form of racism, maybe that's where we differ. I guess I don't understand why government schools are the only ones that should admit students solely on the basis of merit (by which, I presume, you mean GPA and test scores). Why would it be wrong to submit a falsified transcript to a government school (if you assume that it is okay to lie on an essay)?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asking for any kind of ideological view for admission to a public university should be illegal. The reason is that the government has no right to discriminate based on someone's ideas, good or bad; discrimination based on someone's race (in the public realm) should also be illegal. Private universities have the right to ask for any kind of essay they want, precisely because they are private and we aren't forced to support them.

I think that all schools should admit students soley on the basis of merit, but private schools have the right to admit based on other criteria as well (for the same reason that they can discriminate based on race or ideas).

It is wrong to submit a falsified transcript to a public school because grades are an objective part of one's evaluation. An essay containing a loaded question is not, and implicilty forces people to support views antithetical to their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asking for any kind of ideological view for admission to a public university should be illegal. The reason is that the government has no right to discriminate based on someone's ideas, good or bad; discrimination based on someone's race (in the public realm) should also be illegal.
What I'm not getting is how this isn't simply the observation that the government has no business being in the education business. Given that it is in the education business, I don't understand how there is this extra set of requirements on the nature of government schools. If you're arguing "There shouldn't be government schools", then really they also have no right to require transcripts, because they have no right to exist. If you aren't making that argument, then I don't understand your rationale in claiming that government schools -- and only government schools -- should be prevented from asking about your ideas (while I guess they can ask about your grades). Government schools do discriminate on the basis of numerous factors, such as ability to pay (I know it seems like unlimited free state education is a presumed right AKA entitlement, but actually there are limitations on state funding of education), as well as basic intellectual abilities so for example you have to have a high school diploma, often you have to have a certain GPA, you should have taken certain classes, you also have to fill out an application form (no students who have refused to fill out the form are admitted). I'm looking for the logic of the step that doesn't depend on the complete illegitimacy of education as a government function, and which still leaves us concluding that you cannot ask about a person's ideas.
It is wrong to submit a falsified transcript to a public school because grades are an objective part of one's evaluation. An essay containing a loaded question is not, and implicilty forces people to support views antithetical to their own.
A transcript is "loaded", in that if you failed a lot of classes, you are objectively scrod. If you answer a viewpoint question honestly, then that is an objective fact -- you have reported your views, and they can be objectively seen. A transcript is similarly an objective report of what you were able to accomplish in certain classes. Both are objectively "part of one's evaluation". I could understand the argument if you were claiming that the fact of being a government school were so reprehensible that no concept of morality should restrain a person in submitting their application, but you're not making that claim. Lying is immoral, in general, except when a person threatens your life. Are you claiming that not being admitted to a government school is equivalent to having a gun held to your head? If so, I don't see how you can argue that falsifying a transcript is not equally justified.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lying on an essay to a government school is only justifiable when the government school is engaging in unjustified discrimination, such as on the basis of race or ideas. Possesion of a high school diploma, transcripts, SAT scores, filling out an application etc. are all objective measurements of one's scholatic abilities, and are therefore legitimate criteria for admission to a government school (though I think education should be fully privatized). Again, government-run education is completely illegitimate; I'm discussing the ethics of dealing with it since it does exist.

Private schools should have the right to discriminate based on any criteria, rational or irrational, since one can choose whether or not to support them.

Lying is not only justified if it will save your life; it is justified in protecting one's values from force generally. Social services, if they are going to exist (which they shouldn't) should be open to everyone equally, regardless of race or ideas. If the government made it illegal for atheists to attend public universities (but still made atheists pay for them via taxation), would it be immoral to pretend one were religious? I think not. Government is the agency of force, and has no righ to discriminate based on irrelevant criteria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lying on an essay to a government school is only justifiable when the government school is engaging in unjustified discrimination, such as on the basis of race or ideas. Possesion of a high school diploma, transcripts, SAT scores, filling out an application etc. are all objective measurements of one's scholatic abilities, and are therefore legitimate criteria for admission to a government school (though I think education should be fully privatized).
What determines whether a particular action is justified? Suppose we were considering a private Baptist bible school, and they had a policy excluding Jews and atheists -- then in light of their purpose, the exclusion of Jews would be wholely justified, as would be the exclusion of atheists. I think that if a would-be cellist were to apply to DeVry Institute, the school would be justified in excluding the cellist, because their purpose is not to teach the cello, and if the Juilliard were to receive an application from someone wishing for training in engine repair, they too would be justified in rejecting the application. The latter kind of discrimination, between cellists and car repair guys, can be made by government schools too. In other words, I don't see how you can determine whether a choice is justified unless you have in mind a purpose, in the first place.

By the same token, it would be irrational for a Baptist bible college to exclude a prospective student (solely) on the basis that the student is a deeply religious and committed Baptist. The rationality of a choice is not an acontextual absolute -- it relates to your purpose.

Now it is widely stated by various schools that part of their purpose is to train young people to be "better citizens", to "give back" to the world, and so on. This would include both private and public schools.

Private schools should have the right to discriminate based on any criteria, rational or irrational, since one can choose whether or not to support them.
Agreed: but that doesn't help with assessing government schools, which do not have any right to exist in the first place. In the context of admitting that government schools do exist, and they do have certain purposes, why is it wrong to make decisions based on suitability given the purpose?

Now there is a principle which you haven't mentioned, and maybe that's what you're thinking of, namely "equal protection". A private institution is under no obligation to behave according to any stated policies, so a Baptist school could suddenly decide to exclude all Baptists and only admit Orthodox Jews. A government institution is supposed to blindly follow rules, so if there were to be a rule requiring the admission of any person getting at least a 2.0 GPA, then if you have a 2.0 GPA they cannot say "We don't want to admit you"; but if they have a policy of requiring 100 hours of prior community service and you have not done any community service, then they should exclude you. Are you then thinking of an equal-protection basis? The problem is that these tests for political correctness are part of the policy, so you are getting the same protection under the law as your altruist, collectivist neighbor who doesn't have to lie to express their beliefs.

Lying is not only justified if it will save your life; it is justified in protecting one's values from force generally. Social services, if they are going to exist (which they shouldn't) should be open to everyone equally, regardless of race or ideas.
But why should they not be open to everyone, period? Without consideration of GPA, for instance? Or without consideration of whether you can write a grammatical sentence in English and can write a coherent paragraph (which is a requirement for admission to some government schools)? I think the only way for this argument to go through is if you can show that certain purposes for public education are legitimate, while others are not. The difficult part is making the argument without at the same time arguing that government schools are legitimate in the first place. This is why I think the argument really comes down to only one thing, the illegitimacy of taxation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asking for any kind of ideological view for admission to a public university should be illegal. The reason is that the government has no right to discriminate based on someone's ideas, good or bad; discrimination based on someone's race (in the public realm) should also be illegal. Private universities have the right to ask for any kind of essay they want, precisely because they are private and we aren't forced to support them.

It is wrong to submit a falsified transcript to a public school because grades are an objective part of one's evaluation. An essay containing a loaded question is not, and implicilty forces people to support views antithetical to their own.

I cannot agree with the first statement as long as it is the quality of the respondent's answer and not the opinion itsel that is judged. Asking someone to discuss a controversial topic can be a very effective way to determine whether he/she actually has an opinion and then, if so, just what that opinion is based on. They should ideally wish to know (1) does this person have a brain? and (2) how well does he/she use it? Whether someone believes that diversity is good or bad should be irrelevant (in the context of a college application) as long as a sound, articulate argument is made. If writing a crappy essay telling the admissions officers exactly what they want to hear counts for more, then that is not any university that I would wish to attend...but they should be allowed to ask these questions.

Essays like this force people to support views antithetical to their own only after they make assumptions about the answer that the asker actually wants to hear and then responds in kind even if they do not believe their own statements because the fear of the consequences of not doing so is too great. It is that person's insecurities and fixation on what others want from him/her that are the problem. No one is forcing anyone to do anything against their will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if it's too late for me to pipe in on this, but I would like to take note of a few things in this conversation which I think will be of merit.

EC had gone in depth about his disapproval of "diversity" in the generic sense of "affirmative action", however, his zealousy has clouded his reason immensely. I share his disdain for affirmative action, however, for writing a paper for college admission the worst thing you can do is come off as some sort of non-conformist zealot who will automatically assume that this paper is part of a politically motivated form of indoctrination, even if this is the case, there is a very practical way to get around it.

"Diversity" can easily be substituted for benevolent ends that I would guess are not contradictory with rational egoism. Such as a person being admitted into a college for his merits, rather than something that would be deemed irrationally discriminatory such as assuming that "African Americans" are not capable of comprehending the periodic table (do not quote me on this as it is meant as a joke). You can simply remain silent on such issues as quotas, if they are not mentioned by name, there really isn't a point in discussing them.

There is always a way to be both truthful and respectful, and this is always the best route when dealing with professors. Most professors of the physical sciences tend to be very good, unlike the grotesque morons that I had to deal with in the humanities and liberal arts departments at my university. I was alwasy walking on egg shells with alot of those folks, as they tend to be very thin skinned and quite willing to deduct points for the wrong kind of political views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just for the record, admissions essays are hardly read at the undergraduate level. I worked in undergraduate admissions and only those candidates that are on the borderline in terms of GPA and SAT are reviewed to that extent.

If you are at the point then a good essay will help you. Generally admissions officials have a BA/BS at most, are fairly liberal but also are very fair. While I wouldn't write an essay against diversity I would provide examples where diversity is in fact a benefit. We are apt to think of affirmative action when the word "diversity" comes up, but diversity is much more than that. Diversity of ideas in a group may be a benefit, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...