Campus Free Speech

The Only Conservative Professor at Hamilton Has Some Valid Questions About Its Diversity Requirement

When diversity actually means more of the same

|

Hamilton
Benjamin D Esham / Wikimedia Commons

Hamilton College has instituted a diversity requirement: all students must take a course that deals with issues of race, class, or identity—even if they are majoring in the hard sciences.

The proposal, which was approved by the faculty governing body 80-19, doesn't precisely specify what constitutes diversity, however, which has left one independent-minded professor wondering if his course on conservative thought could satisfy the requirement.

"Is it not eye-opening that a supermajority of the faculty would approve of imposing a requirement based upon a concept, 'diversity,' that was never precisely defined before it was voted on?" Robert Paquette, a history professor at Hamilton, asked Inside Higher Ed. "Will departments be drawing up lists of 'approved courses'? Which courses will be included? Which courses will be excluded? Does the understanding of 'diversity' include viewpoint diversity, and would, e.g., my course on conservative thought make anyone's list? Would all history courses make the list? Or none, or some?"

These are valid questions. Paquette, as it so happens, has donated to Republican candidates in the past, which makes him something of an anomaly. He is the only undergraduate professor to do so—not just at Hamilton, but at any of the top 50 liberal arts schools in the country, according to Campus Reform.

There are, after all, plenty of left-leaning professors eager to inject material having to do with race, class, sexuality, and other forms of identity into the curriculum. But there are very few professors are teaching about conservatism. Even fewer—practically none—are conservatives themselves.

Of course, when universities talk about diversity, they aren't actually talking about diversity. They don't want to expose students to a broader range of views. They want to expose students to more of the same view most of them already hold.

NEXT: A Night of Stars at the DNC, Clinton Becomes Official, No THC in Colorado Water: A.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He better already have tenure, or he’s gonna be gone soon.

  2. Of course, when universities talk about diversity, they aren’t actually talking about diversity. They don’t want to expose students to a broader range of views. They want to expose students to more of the same view most of them already hold.

    In other news, the sun rose in the East this morning…

  3. QUIT ROCKING THE BOAT, WRONG-THINKER!

  4. “Paquette, as it so happens, has donated to Republican candidates in the past, which makes him something of an anomaly. He is the only undergraduate professor to do so?not just at Hamilton, but at any of the top 50 liberal arts schools in the country, according to Campus Reform.”

    In other words, there is only one conservative in the whole country who is intellectually qualified to teach undergraduates at the top 50 liberal arts colleges. Proof that conservatives are stupid.

    /prog talking point

  5. Scandinavian Studies is diversity.

    So is Germanic folklore. It just depends on the student taking the class.

    When Latino students take classes in Latino Studies, does that count as diversity?

    What about African-American students taking courses in African-American studies, or women taking courses in Women’s Studies?

    Doesn’t sound like diversity to me.

    I think what they should do is give each incoming student a lie detector test, try to figure out what each student hates, and force them to take a class glorifying whatever they hate most.

    Is there a Libertarian Studies department?

    Because I think you’re likely to find a lot of incoming SJWs hate libertarians more than anything.

  6. Looks like Rico forgot to mention that trump is a sexist/racist in this article

    1. If you need that pointed out to you in every article, you’re probably a sexist/racist.

      1. Probably? Let’s not hedge.

  7. Diversity in everything but thought.

    1. Hear, hear!

  8. It costs $50,000 a year to go to Hamilton, and although it most surely is the jewel of the Mohawk that is a pretty steep price. It also has a huge endowment.

    That was today’s Crusty Juggler Talks Tuition moment.

    1. Tell us more about this huge endowment…

      1. Yes, is it well?

      2. Bunch of sickies around here….

  9. Nothing like a staff comprised of 99% Liberal professors brainstorming on diversity. How about a requirement that 50% of the teaching staff be conservative in order to meet the concept of diversity within the institution?

    1. I understand the sentiment, but that’s not really much better — it shoehorns people into one of only two poorly defined political schools of thought.

      If you want true diversity, you need to value true tolerance, i.e. the ability to live and work and listen side by side with people’s who’s opinions and lifestyles you disagree with, and to not allow those disagreements to bleed over into every aspect of your life.

      1. Anyone who disagrees with the left is intolerant and must not be tolerated because tolerant people do not tolerate intolerance.

        1. Except when it comes to Muslims, where tolerating the intolerant is the highest form of tolerance.

    2. I’d love to see someone push this concept, i.e.: introduce some diversity into that staff, maybe even do it democraticaly via vote. Of course working with all those leftists would be no utopia, probably lots of petty HR complaints and lawsuits about needing conservative bathrooms, etc. Since conservatives would be the minority, maybe they could become the C in the LGBTQC party, inclusion helps us all.

  10. These are valid questions. Paquette, as it so happens, has donated to Republican candidates in the past, which makes him something of an anomaly. He is the only undergraduate professor to do so?not just at Hamilton, but at any of the top 50 liberal arts schools in the country, according to Campus Reform.

    My HS was comprised almost entirely of white students from middle-upper to upper class households, mostly conservative.

    Liberal arts colleges were constantly advertising for seniors to apply, mostly on the bulletin boards. I never really understood the attraction, as state schools tended to have better programs for the things I was interested in. Still, a ton of people I knew went to these places. And they came out VERY left-wing. I think it’s a mixture of the mentality of students that prefer the liberal arts environment and the professors/administration that makes this happen.

    1. You also have the fact that a lot of those so called “conservative” mid to upper class kids are conformists, and never develop original thinking or creativity beyond the area of their specialized education. I know a person that is very liberal, SJW now, who used to be way more conservative than I ever was. He pretty much went whole hat for progressive SJWism at college (the one my younger brother is an alumnus of as well). He is a person who thinks a lot about the areas he likes and is creative in (he’s a toy designer who worked for Hasbro for a few years, and now is launching his own table top game, and it’s quite good), but has never ever thought for himself about politics, or even thought to challenge his worldview with others’ thoughts. The same is true of a lot of my friends, and it does make them more narrow minded and resistant to change.

  11. Serious question: Has there ever been a scientific investigation into the notion that “diversity is good” or — probably better phrasing — “workplace diversity yields more productive outcomes”?

    1. It’s not about productivity. Productivity is bad because it causes inequality. It’s about fairness and feeling good.

    2. “Diversity” is deemed to be righteous in its own regard, and to question it’s value by asking for quantification means you are basically hateful toward all of those who are supposed to be “helped” by it. It would be like asking for someone to provide empirical evidence for the value of motherhood, or children. When something is considered to be a moral imperative or to have intrinsic good about it, there is no need for discussion or argument, It just is.

  12. GROUPTHINK IS DIVERSITY

  13. This is the reason that so many millenials have such disdain for conservative thought. They have been lied to, and paid dearly for those lies.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.