Customer Reviews

The Diversity Myth

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Finally, a book that accurately reveals the tyrannical dictatorship of the multicultural ideologues on American campuses. As a college philosophy instructor, the predicament portrayed by the authors of this excellent book strikes home all too accurately for me. This volume should be required reading on every campus that has a "Multicultural Day," as does mine. If anything, the authors understate the case against the academic despotism of race, class, gender and sexual orientation preferences. Clearly, those "tenured radicals" who protest too much only prove the point further. Buy several copies of this book: keep one, donate one to your college and local library, and give one to a friend. Congratulations to Sacks and Thiel for having the courage to swim against the ideologically polluted academic current of today's campuses.

This is an interesting and informative book on an important subject. It concerns multiculturalism and political intolerance at Stanford in the 1980's. The authors (both now lawyers/businessmen/non-academics) were Stanford undergraduates. Thiel took his J.D. at Stanford; Sacks took his at the University of Chicago. If nothing else, the book demonstrates the quality of the Stanford experience and/or the ability of the admissions office to select students of quality because the book is well-researched, well-argued and well-written.

It is a partisan book in the sense that it adduces evidence to support a particular point of view, one wholly inimical to the multiculture (as they term it). It is not, however, a flailing, mindless screed. It points to a multiplicity of events, interactions and facts. It names names and it provides a great many of the specifics germane to the case(s). Its arguments and narratives cannot simply be dismissed as reactionary or studiedly partial. If the authors have misused evidence or conveniently forgotten counter examples they should be challenged on the facts, not criticized, e.g., because of their later business success or their extensive use of campus journalistic records. Their frame of reference is far broader than that. To say that they were too involved in the issues and those issues' initial reportage is also to acknowledge that they were involved, personally and directly. Reporters are among our society's most notable writers of `instant history'. The degree to which that instant history will stand the test of time will ultimately be decided on the actual facts of the case(s).

There is a great deal of analysis in addition to the reportage. They examine, e.g., the contradictions of the multiculture. For example, if that multiculture turns on the notion of victimology and individuals take their identity from their oppression, what happens when they are vindicated or receive power? Do they lose their identity? If that identity is dependent on their victimhood, what happens when that victimhood is ameliorated or even reversed? Are they dependent on the sustained allegations of oppression because its absence or mitigation would reduce their claims to moral authority?

Their final argument is thoughtful and interesting. Essentially it is something like the following: the multiculture's grievances are with bad elements of European/American cultureS. In addition to those separate cultures (with both good and bad elements) there is something that is better termed `civilization'--the distillation of the positive elements of those separate cultures, best encapsulated in our country's founding documents in the phrase `natural rights.' (We would now say `human rights.') Those rights focus upon the individual. They privilege the individual over the desires of the collective. They are principles rather than shifting cultural practices. Sometimes we are faithful to them and sometimes not. They are a product of the enlightenment, but purged of some of the enlightenment's more negative impulses. Those principles should transcend the urgings of partial cultures, including the multiculture.

All in all, this is a very engaging book. It is not one that will be enjoyed by former Stanford president, Donald Kennedy. In addition to looking at cultural/political issues the book offers a mini- case study that highlights some of the problems with contemporary higher education. In support of the multiculture, Kennedy expanded dramatically the administration and staff of Stanford (though not the faculty) and then fell victim to a financial scandal/fiasco. Using an indirect cost recovery rate far higher than, e.g., Berkeley's (which also does very big science in an expensive geographical area), it was discovered that a number of inappropriate items were funded through the overhead on federal grants (university yacht maintenance, antique furniture for the president's house, a wedding reception for the president and his new wife--an attorney working at the university, who replaced his wife of 34 years a scant 2 months after the divorce, and so on). The inference, of course, is that utopian collectivism often fails to live up to its promises, but the elites always manage to acquire an impressive number of perquisites and benefits along the way.

The bottom line: this is a passionately argued book, replete with facts and incidents. The authors do infer that Stanford represents something of a special case here and that the majority of higher education institutions have not suffered from the extremes visited upon it. That is hopeful.

This book came out in the early 90's and attempts to shed light on the goings-on at Standford at the time. The authors express dismay at what they argue was the dumbing down of Stanford curricula, attacks on Western civilization, and a powerful multicultural ideology that permeated every aspect of the campus bringing it to its intellectual and social knees.

The book details a number of admittedly ridiculous events that occured on campus (although sources are questionable), while others were quite serious. The authors often have an inverted or biased interpretation of the events which becomes clear to the objective reader. Greedy and corrupt campus officials are not individuals making bad choices - they're people who are part and parcel of a so called multicultural movement/ideology/culture that gives them carte blanche to do what they want. Racial identity politics is said to be a dangerous offshoot of the new ideology yet this is something that has been with us for centuries, long before 'multiculturalism' got started. American slavery based on racial affiliation is a stark example of racial identity politics.

The book overemphasizes problems on the campus and links these problems to the presence of a multiculural ideology. The same problems would be found in any era at any time for any cross section of society. It is not necessarily the sign of a radically new trend. The school campuses that I attended nearly a decade after this book was written didn't resemble anything contained in it.

For what it's worth, it does offers fantastic insights into the significant and distinguishing features of Western Civilization (not to be confused with Western cultures) and its place in society.

As an interesting aside, one of the authors is now a billionaire (co-founder of Paypal and investor for Facebook). He's also a libertarian. If you find libertarianism lacking in fundamental ways, you'll notice those things lacking in this book. Like libertarian philosophy, the book is deeply and richly analytical, yet too often simultaneously misses the boat completely.

This is a great book, a sad reflection not only of our Universities but of society in general. Basically its great to talk about all the fantastic things that blacks, gays and women have done. Its amazing that they have got anywhere because of the terribel white males. Blacks are stupid, lazy, violent rapists because white males oppressed them. Homosexuals are deviants because evil white heterosexuals made them feel inferior. Women don't hold as many positions of power because angry white men would feel their manhood dissapear. These groups are allowed to hate the whites because they caused all their troubles. Society must be re-programmed to understand this.

Unfortnately this is the absolute garbage that goes on in our Universities under the guise of diversity and multiculturalism. It is a dangerous movement to destroy everything white and western.

As an attendee of Stanford during the same years as Sacks and Thiel, I shared many of their concerns with the shifting standards of educational practice and the possible consequences on the quality of undergraduate learning. This book, however, does nothing to further this debate, rather it stands as a shameless piece of yellow journalism that radically distorts the facts of the situation. The great majority of the footnotes in this book are to the Stanford Review, a "newspaper" that is a laughing stock in the Stanford community, and the majority of articles within were written by Sacks, Thiel, or one of their close friends. Nepotistic, overblown, and amateurish, this volume would shame the bookshelf of any respectable student of education in America.

The contents of the book profoundly altered my perception of our higher-education institutions. A graduate of Stanford, many points the authors made struck close to home. What a superb read! I would give anything for an opportunity to speak to any of the authors face to face.

See how the gentle fascists work the educational system. No shame for the political indoctrinists. Learn how to identify the dictocrats. Thick, full-flavored and satisfying. I'll go back for seconds.

of Messrs Thiel and Sacks. The morality of "I've got mine so screw you" masquerading as discourse against diversity. A clever bunch, these people are, but they fool nobody. That shills like William Kristol support it should be your clue.