“If we are to continue to lead, we must continue to seek and nurture exceptional talent without regard to gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status or other characteristics that too often divide us.”

—“An Update on Gender Equality,” President Skorton, The Sun, March 9

I doubt President Skorton’s reaffirmation of meritocracy came as a surprise to anyone. Indeed, such is expected from the president of a major academic institution. Puzzling, however, are his further comments on the state of the University.

Indeed, Skorton continues his piece by depicting the “underrepresentation” of women in Cornell’s science departments and by presenting the alleviatory programs. One such program is Cornell’s ADVANCE center, whose short term goal is “achieving 20 percent women faculty in each science and engineering department” and long term goal is “that a third of our science and engineering faculty be women.”

The contradiction is clear: How can we reconcile “seeking […] without regard to gender” with programs that specifically seek for gender? Indeed, this raises a pertinent question: Can the goals of “color-blindness” and “diversity” coexist?

To answer this question, we must first clarify our terms. “Diversity,” according to Cornell’s web site, is the assurance that “our community embraces and supports individuals from all racial, ethnic, religious, gender, sexual orientation, class, disability and nationality groups in their chosen pursuits.” Hardly disagreeable.

However, is diversity an end unto itself? That is, does the value of diversity lie solely in the representation of difference? Is it enough that our student body is multifaceted? Or is diversity the means to some ultimate end?

I would argue that it must necessarily be so. Certainly, it would be hard to claim that a campus whose students barely interact with one another is fulfilling the goals of “diversity.” We must therefore recalibrate the discussion in order to avoid fetishizing diversity.

Diversity provides the opportunity for interaction between students who would never do so otherwise. It enables an exploration of different takes on the human experience, and gives one a sense of his or her standing vis-à-vis the rest of world. Therefore, the true goal of diversity is to foster a self-reflective conversation about difference.

Such a goal is seemingly opposed to “color-blindness.” Indeed, the “color-blind” ethic states that personal background and convictions are irrelevant. The determining factor is aptitude and not, in the words of Skorton, “the characteristics that too often divide us.” Perhaps the most well-known application of “color blindness” is California’s Proposition 209, which forbids state organizations from practicing discriminatory or preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of “race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.” This approach favors qualification over difference. It finds more merit in achievement than in diversity’s “conversation.”

However, are the two goals mutually exclusive? Such a question is most relevant to Cornell, whose motto, “I would found an institution where any person can find instruction in any study,” encapsulates the twin ideals of scholarship and inclusiveness. Can we benefit from diversity while maintaining academic standards?

Let us then consider Cornell’s attempts at “diversity.” One could note affirmative action policies or quotas such as those proposed by ADVANCE. However, perhaps a more tangible example was the mandatory “diversity” session at orientation. The effectiveness of the program, which included a play that highlighted potential conflicts between students of different backgrounds, was dubious. Indeed, the performance emphasized wariness rather than engagement.

One cannot fault this specific program, as large-scale programming conducive to meaningful engagement is virtually impossible. Indeed, it is a truism that individualized attention better enables depth and nuance. Such explains the greater effectiveness of seminars rather than lectures.

To that end, perhaps Cornell should leave the job of diversity to the student body. While large-scale events merely highlight difference, smaller programs designed by students can better foster genuine exploration of that difference. A good example was the “I Believe …” dinner hosted by the Interfaith Council. Students from different religious backgrounds sat at a table and responded to questions such as “How did you come to your beliefs?”, and “How do you see your faith interacting with other faiths?” The conversation, of course, was not limited to these questions. Indeed, dinner participants used the questions as a catalyst for further discussion. Clearly, the intimacy of the event was conducive to the expression of deeply held convictions.

The goals of diversity are not magically reached with the appearance of African-Americans, Jews and Asians on campus. Nor are they reached with the fixed representation of women professors in the sciences. Attainment of real “diversity” requires creativity, commitment and hard work. Should it not then be the prerogative of the students?