Bamboo Offshoot has collaborated with fellow API publications from NYU, Berkeley, UCLA and Duke, to create the API Collegiate Press Tumblr to help build a sense of community. Please check it out and let us know what you think.

Also, if you want to contribute please let us know at bamboo@usc.edu.

By E. J. Bies, guest writer

Diversity’s back in the limelight, and it’s getting more than 15 minutes of fame. Recent events, notably the Increase Diversity Bake Sale held at UC Berkeley’s Sproul Plaza in September, have stoked discourse to a blaze. The Berkeley College Republicans, whose members sought to expose the “unconstitutional” aim of one Senate Bill 185, sold cupcakes to ethnic minorities for a discounted price, whereas white males were charged a premium (two bucks) for a baked treat.

What might have been insensitive — or just rude — has, however, called for significant discussion. The bill — which would enact an affirmative action policy, allowing UC’s and CSU’s to consider “race, gender, ethnicity,” and so on — doesn’t only demand we ponder the constitutionality of giving preference to applicants based on their ethnicity, but whether diversity’s really all it’s cracked up to be.

Diversity’s supporters claim that the chief benefit of a diversified student body — one that more or less satisfies a baseline number, or “critical mass,” of minority students — is an enriched college experience. What better way to learn, if not in the classroom, than connecting with students from all different backgrounds? Many times, indeed, college is the venue wherein young men and women first become exposed to harshly contrasting forms of worldview, religion, language, food — the list goes on. These eye-opening experiences — which are what college is “all about” — make for more well-rounded students. And it’s certainly important to escape that ingrained “small town” insularity. Think of it as a necessary rite of passage, into adulthood, or maturity.

Now, go to the other end of the spectrum: you’ll get thumped by statistics, recent studies. But, as is expected, the studies have a lot to say. Prominently, in 1999, one Stanley Rothman headed a new project at Smith College. With just two other men under his wings, Rothman impressively surveyed a combined 4,000 students and faculty members from 140 colleges nationwide. Participants answered benign questions questions (like: “How do you rate the quality of education you receive?”), and the answers were then evaluated under a relevant context: the proportion of minority students enrolled at each school. If diversity’s proponents were correct in their assumptions, the schools with higher minority percentages would report higher rates of cultural acceptance among their students and faculty, more positive evaluations of the educational conditions, etc. Shockingly enough, Rothman results were exactly the contrary. Not only were the diversified schools increasingly eager to complain about discrimination, their students held lower estimations for both the quality of education they received and the perceived work ethic of their colleagues. Rothman said it loud: diversity does more harm than good.

Things became even more interesting when Rothman looked into how a concentrated enrollment of a particular minority affected the survey results. Hispanic students remained fairly neutral a factor, whereas — appealing to the stereotype — schools that saw higher rates of Asian enrollment reported greater student quality. Faculty members generally perceived their students as performing at a higher caliber.

I’m stuck (and it’s okay!). As with most normative issues, it’s difficult to arrive at a stance that seems overwhelmingly “right.” Studies here, studies there — it might seem logical to dissuade, or even disallow, colleges from the use of affirmative action. Constitutional or not, we’ve seen that diversification might not even be effective. But, while the statistics don’t lie — for those 140 colleges, at least — people aren’t afraid to stand up to numbers, normal distributions, et al. . . . So I’ll say it: Let’s never forget to make the distinction between what’s effective and what’s upright.

E. J. Bies is currently a technical writing intern at Versatile College Consulting.

By Jeffrey Ledesma

Senators Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Dan Inouye (D-Hawaii) Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) welcome Goodwin Liu before the Senate vote on May 19. Photo: Creative Commons

President Barack Obama made history in 2008 when he defeated Republican rival John McCain by becoming the first African American to head to the White House. With promises of “change we can believe in,” Obama hasn’t ceased to make historical headlines.

About six months after giving his victory speech in Chicago, Obama nominated federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Sotomayor became the first Hispanic and third female member of America’s highest court.

But recently, the Asian American community was denied a similar honor.

Republican senators used a filibuster to block a vote on Goodwin Liu’s nomination to the U.S. 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco since they considered him too liberal. The UC Berkeley law professor would have been the court’s only active or full-time Asian American judge.

If the 40-year-old were confirmed he would have been the only Asian American out of 175 active judges on the appeals courts.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid described Liu as a man living the American dream and a highly successful son of immigrants.

“His integrity has been praised by democrats and republicans,” Reid said. “Not just one or two, but many.”

Despite Reid‘s attempts to combat the filibuster with a long list of praises and qualifications, the Senate rejected cloture with a 52 to 43 vote on May 19.

According to Politico.com, the filibuster will be met with disappointment from both progressives and Asian American groups that advocated for Liu and hoped to see him seated on the Western court that covers a region of the country with a significant Asian American population.

With the exception of Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who supported Liu and Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who voted with the GOP, voting was almost strictly along party lines.

“I stated during the Bush administration that judicial nominations deserved an up-or-down vote, except in ‘extraordinary circumstances,’ and my position has not changed simply because there is a different president making the nominations,” Murkowski said in press release following the vote.

“This is a loss for our country and a deep disappointment for the Asian American community,” Vincent Eng told the LA Times. Eng is an Asian American civil rights advocate.

The successful GOP filibuster appears to have doomed Liu’s chances of becoming the only active Asian American on the court that serves California, Hawaii, Washington and Oregon.

Along with fellow Republicans, the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called Liu too progressive for the position.

“Mr. Liu said he believed that the last presidential election gave liberals, as he put it, quote, ‘a tremendous opportunity to actually get their ideas and the progressive vision of the Constitution and of law into practice.’” McConnell said. “This is repugnant.”

Americans for Limited Government echoed this feeling calling Liu “the most radical nominee to the federal bench in a generation.” Similar in sentiment, the American Center for Law and Justice called the vote “a victory for the rule of law and a sound defeat for judicial activism.”

But not everyone agreed. Many senators believed that the filibuster has set an unfortunate precedent.

“I think the ramifications of this filibuster are going to be long and difficult for those who cause this good man to be filibustered,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer of California on the senate floor.

Berkeley Law Dean Christopher Edley criticized the denial of cloture in a blog posted by Berkeley Law student Jonathan Singer.

“I met just this morning with a delegation of lawyers from China,” said Edley. “I had planned to talk with them about our national pride in having a federal judiciary independent of partisan politics and discuss the efforts of many in China to develop a similar legal culture.”

Edley explained that the situation with Liu’s nomination was upsetting.

“It would have been fraudulent to boast on the very day the Senate cast aside respect for merit,” he added. “The Senate has had up-or-down votes on many Republican nominees far more conservative than Goodwin is ‘liberal.’ It’s shameful.”

Law professor and former prosecutor David Sklansky described Liu as a brilliant scholar and a dedicated public servant.

The American lawyer of Taiwanese decent has been recognized for his writing on constitutional law, education policy, civil rights, and the Supreme Court.

“Those of us who have been fortunate enough to have Goodwin as a colleague, and the students have been fortunate enough to have him as a teacher, know he would have been an exemplary and fair-minded judge,” Sklansky said.

In the end, history was still made as Liu became the first judicial nominee named by President Obama to be successfully filibustered. It was the first successful filibuster of a judicial nominee since 2005.