National Review
Columbia University’s Ultra-Woke Idea: Segregated Graduation Ceremonies
Last week, Columbia University, where I am now a junior, made national headlines because of graduation ceremonies marked by race, sexual orientation and socioeconomic status. These multicultural ceremonies have a history in many schools, but Columbia’s was apparently the one that received attention from the national media. While discussion and speech are always important, most of the resulting social media frenzy has focused on the wrong ideas. It is not a question of going into the bush and discussing which historically marginalized group deserves to be recognized or whether these ceremonies are optional. The very creation and existence of such events is fundamentally problematic from the start. Separating students by race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and socioeconomic status is inherently damaging to the fabric of university communities and undermines the social progress that these events are intended to achieve. The adoption of re-segregation in this scenario to combat “inequality” focuses on an uncontrollable characteristic of an individual and reduces a person’s identity to superficial stereotypes, neglecting their nuanced existence. It also bears more than a passing and uncomfortable resemblance to the racism of decades past. People are multifaceted with their own experiences, talents, interests and strengths. Failing to recognize this is not only ignorant, it is also dehumanizing. A common rebuttal to criticism of these ceremonies is that those who want to end them do not care about the achievements of the students that the ceremonies celebrate. This is not only false, but it also condescendingly assumes that black, Asian, “Latin American”, first generation / low-income, “lavender” (LGBTQIA +) and Native American students can only have their achievements celebrated by the rise of an institution that cannot see beyond its mere identities. It also assumes that America is so racially bankrupt that members of these groups must depend on an institution to be recognized as human. In this way, the university’s focus on identity reinforces the division of the campus, as students depend more on institutional labeling to define who they are. The result is the weakening of the campus unit to an almost irreparable extent. Columbia probably started these ceremonies in good faith. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Diversity and multiculturalism can be valuable goals. However, they cannot be the sole focus of all university affairs. However, this is more and more exactly the case, so much so that it is sometimes difficult to identify what else can be learned in these expensive elite institutions. The imposition of diversity as the prevailing prerequisite for any action has contaminated good intentions and now facilitates the formation of weapons of multiculturalism to conduct the witch hunt against conservatives, nullify freedom of expression and command the politically correct in the classroom. . As a result, identity politics now runs rampant, so that no objective debate can take place because of overwhelming affective censorship. Objectivity is forbidden and everyone is led to believe that they should invest emotionally in a discussion. Now everything is personal to anyone in any conversation. In addition to the collapse of discourse in the classroom, the balkanization of historically disadvantaged groups is also a complete disaster for campus culture. The goal of a liberal arts education is to become assimilated to a student body of all races, origins, creeds and ideologies. A school that encourages students to choose a characteristic to define themselves establishes tribalism, but also underestimates the student’s potential in other areas. This fragmentation polarizes the student body. As far as it occurred in Columbia, it is often just dismissed as “New York City culture”. But this is hardly an excuse. The agreed cliques have worsened the campus culture, even though no one, especially the school administration, wants to admit it. Columbia may be engaged in the hard work of facilitating significant community growth. Instead, the school cuts shortcuts, supporting a large facade facing potential students. It is a facade that hides the fact that our community is now just a disorganized conglomerate of factions loosely held together by an awakened elitism that gets in the way of anything and everything in the name of “multiculturalism”. The academy is no longer concerned with students finding common humanity in each other. We should no longer see the past race, as we are instructed to further entrench ourselves in it. To make matters worse, schools cannot really take the trouble to resolve racism. These ceremonies exist only so that the faculties can give the impression that they advocate progress towards their savior complexes. If universities were really concerned with structural racism, multiculturalism would not be revered in the toxic way it is today. Universities would not accept the symbolism when they desperately sought to fill their classes with the most disadvantaged students to parade as a flawed proof of their awakened good faith. Instead, universities would work to deconstruct the alarming institutional racism charged against Asian Americans in the admission process. In fact, the school’s reputation is more important than the fight against racism. That is exactly why Columbia, instead of directly defending its multicultural ceremonies, simply used obfuscation tactics and changed the name of the events to “celebrations”, since it became clear that the criticisms of the events exceeded the praise. For institutions like Columbia, all convictions are flexible if the name of the school is at stake. Racism is a great cause to fight against when it is convenient. Columbia’s voluntarily segregated graduation ceremonies are not pragmatic steps to resolve real-world discrimination and disparities. They are nothing but smoke and mirrors to try to “outperform” other schools in their quest for wokeness. If schools really solved racism, how would the industrial complex of diversity survive? How would our universities prove to be better than those on the same street? Really looking to innovate in learning, improve your graduation rates or develop niche academic specialties? The thought perishes. Instead, an awakened arms race is taking place in the academy, and any institution that proves it can win the “Oppression Olympics” comes out on top. It is with a heart of gratitude and love for Columbia University that I express my complaints. No institution is faultless, including the most prestigious that this country has to offer. Diversity is important, but respectable civil discourse must be restored. They are not mutually exclusive. Criticism about graduation events cannot be simply dismissed with basic calls for “racism”, “sexism” or any laundry list “-ism” that is convenient to launch on a given day. Students and teachers of all ideologies should reflect on their tolerance for opposing ideas and how they approach conversations with others. For those who were so afraid to share their ideas for fear of “cancellation”, humiliation or undervaluation, it is time to gather your own courage and galvanize the spirit of others, as you are not alone. We must all do our part to rehabilitate the integrity of academic freedom. Without that, the academy’s powerful influence in shaping some of the best and brightest American minds will fall to an un liberal hegemony that will continue to blow until the flame of academic freedom dies. So graduation ceremonies will be the least of our problems.