502
PARTISAN REVIEW
college at all before the 1960s, and how black enrollments have plummet–
ed in the University of California system's selective universities since
Proposition 209 outlawed racial preferences in admissions. Of course, nei–
ther fact addresses the issue of whether African-American academic
performance would on average be better in an educational system that did
not rely on racial preferences and did not, thereby, convey the debili tating
assumption that African-Americans require racial preferences in order to
succeed.
Bowen and Bok are enthusiastic supporters of the view that "diver–
sity" in education is, in and of itself, a good thing, and that racial diversity
is an especially good thing. But the loose chain of arguments by which
they link this view to racial preferences amounts to little more than an
endorsement of conventional wisdom. They offer three points. First, we
live in a diverse society, so encountering racial diversity in college is an
important part of higher education. Second, higher education is meant to
serve a larger social good than merely equipping students with a formal
education, and acquiring experience wi th racial diversi ty fi ts that bill. And
third, a large majority of students who have attended elite undergraduate
colleges (both the 1976 and 1989 cohorts) look back on their college
experience of getting to know people of other races as a positive aspect
of their education.
Encountering racial diversi ty in college may, on the whole, be a good
thing, but it is fascinating how the idea has, virtually without challenge,
become a central dogma of American liberal education. How do we know
that diversity is so important that it is worth sacrificing both academic
standards and fairness in admissions policies to achieve it? Is diversity
achieved by racial preferences the same in the most important respects as
diversity achieved by race-blind admissions? To what degree is student
enthusiasm for diversity a reflection of the dogma itseH?
Throughout their book, Bowen and Bok treat affirmative action in
college admissions as a policy with consequences. So it is, but it is also part
of something larger: a culture of affirmative action. Like a culture, it has its
unquestioned and mostly unquestionable premises, its connection to
broader views oflife, its tendency to pattern participants' attitudes and dis–
positions, and its integration with other institutionalized patterns. The
premises of affirmative action culture are duly reflected in Bowen and
Bok's arguments. They include the idea that the historical legacy of dis–
crimination against blacks in the United States looms so large that it
continues to impede access to higher education; and the idea that college
admissions is a sufficiently diffuse art that a little compromise on the cri–
teria is not egregious. Likewise, Bowen and Bok assume a view of
American life in which race remains central.
