The Variety Fable : Multiculturalism and Political Intolerance on Campus

Interesting, Informative, Passionate and Thoughtful
This is an interesting and informative book on an important subject. It concerns multiculturalism and political intolerance at Stanford in the 1980’s. The authors (both now lawyers/businessmen/non-academics) were Stanford undergraduates. Thiel took his J.D. at Stanford; Sacks took his at the University of Chicago. If nothing else, the book demonstrates the quality of the Stanford experience and/or the ability of the admissions office to select students of quality because the book is well-researched, well-argued and well-written.It is a partisan book in the sense that it adduces evidence to support a particular point of view, one wholly inimical to the multiculture (as they term it). It is not, however, a flailing, mindless screed. It points to a multiplicity of events, interactions and facts. It names names and it provides a great many of the specifics germane to the case(s). Its arguments and narratives cannot simply be dismissed as reactionary or studiedly partial. If the authors have misused evidence or conveniently forgotten counter examples they should be challenged on the facts, not criticized, e.g., because of their later business success or their extensive use of campus journalistic records. Their frame of reference is far broader than that. To say that they were too involved in the issues and those issues’ initial reportage is also to acknowledge that they were involved, personally and directly. Reporters are among our society’s most notable writers of `instant history’. The degree to which that instant history will stand the test of time will ultimately be decided on the actual facts of the case(s).There is a great deal of analysis in addition to the reportage. They examine, e.g., the contradictions of the multiculture. For example, if that multiculture turns on the notion of victimology and individuals take their identity from their oppression, what happens when they are vindicated or receive power? Do they lose their identity? If that identity is dependent on their victimhood, what happens when that victimhood is ameliorated or even reversed? Are they dependent on the sustained allegations of oppression because its absence or mitigation would reduce their claims to moral authority?Their final argument is thoughtful and interesting. Essentially it is something like the following: the multiculture’s grievances are with bad elements of European/American cultureS. In addition to those separate cultures (with both good and bad elements) there is something that is better termed `civilization’–the distillation of the positive elements of those separate cultures, best encapsulated in our country’s founding documents in the phrase `natural rights.’ (We would now say `human rights.’) Those rights focus upon the individual. They privilege the individual over the desires of the collective. They are principles rather than shifting cultural practices. Sometimes we are faithful to them and sometimes not. They are a product of the enlightenment, but purged of some of the enlightenment’s more negative impulses. Those principles should transcend the urgings of partial cultures, including the multiculture.All in all, this is a very engaging book. It is not one that will be enjoyed by former Stanford president, Donald Kennedy. In addition to looking at cultural/political issues the book offers a mini- case study that highlights some of the problems with contemporary higher education. In support of the multiculture, Kennedy expanded dramatically the administration and staff of Stanford (though not the faculty) and then fell victim to a financial scandal/fiasco. Using an indirect cost recovery rate far higher than, e.g., Berkeley’s (which also does very big science in an expensive geographical area), it was discovered that a number of inappropriate items were funded through the overhead on federal grants (university yacht maintenance, antique furniture for the president’s house, a wedding reception for the president and his new wife–an attorney working at the university, who replaced his wife of 34 years a scant 2 months after the divorce, and so on). The inference, of course, is that utopian collectivism often fails to live up to its promises, but the elites always manage to acquire an impressive number of perquisites and benefits along the way.The bottom line: this is a passionately argued book, replete with facts and incidents. The authors do infer that Stanford represents something of a special case here and that the majority of higher education institutions have not suffered from the extremes visited upon it. That is hopeful.

Opinion of a white male born in the upper-middle class that I hope you read if you were about to flame me
As my header states, I’m a white male born and educated in the upper-middle class. Also, like Thiel, I am a libertarian, although politically I’m a little more to the left than he is. I gave the book five stars because I agree with the central premise; however, I understand why people of certain backgrounds and beliefs describe the book as “yellow journalism” because I do agree that it does sensationalize to some extent. If what I’ve written so far has inflamed you and you believe I’m a bigot then you should continue reading because you are who I want to read this.First of all, I know that in a way I’m lucky to have been born into a family that has both resources and values education and hard work. I agree that skin color, gender, and wealth create an uneven playing field. I would argue that of those three, wealth has the greatest effect and gender has the least effect. The reason I like this book is because it points out the negative long term effects of the politically correct (PC) culture that exists in the US. What do I mean by this? In a nutshell I mean that the efforts by the PC crowd have a long term effect of reducing diversity. I believe this is the central pillar of the book and I will explain more in the next paragraph.As a scientist, the type of diversity that matters to me is diversity of opinion. When everyone thinks the same, people do not innovate and society does not move forward. As much as I believe in my understanding of the issue, if you have a different opinion and can back it up with intelligent discourse, that is the diversity I value and that is a positive for society. PC culture destroys this difference of opinion. People who do not have the same views as PC activists and the liberal media are labeled as “bigots”. The end result is you get a large group of people of various races, genders/sexual orientations, height, weight, …, incomes who all believe the same thing and if anyone, from either outside or inside the group, disagrees with an opinion or viewpoint of the group, they are ceremoniously cast away.Let me give you an example. A common rally of the liberal media is gender income inequality. PC activists commonly state that women make $0.79 for every $1 a man makes. In some cases the PC activists get bold and also add, “for the same job”. If you do research on this subject you will find that overall women in the labor force do make about $0.79 for every $1 a man makes. However, this does not take into effect the differences in job occupations and experience between men and women. Men tend to take riskier and more physically demanding jobs than women and also don’t lose experience from spending time at home with their kids. When you filter for the same occupation and experience level the gap in pay decreases to less than $0.05. However, when I state this to people in the PC glob I am immediately labeled a bigot and “don’t understand”. Because my logic is different than their “pack’s” opinion, my logic is negatively labeled and not even argued against.Since I am writing this review over 20 years after the authors wrote this book everyone can see the long term consequences that this book identifies because they have had time to fully develop. People who publicly disagree with a viewpoint of the PC are many times chased on a witch hunt. The PC group has diversity in its members but not in its beliefs. I have one more closing point to add. This is not a new phenomenon, it has most likely been going on even before the birth of “modern humans.” People who do not fall within the majority today are outsiders, first generation feminists were renegades, and scientists who believed the earth revolved around the sun were blasphemers. By labeling well educated people who do not share the same viewpoints as you bigots and failing to engage them in a debate, all you show is that you haven’t learned enough from the past. Now who’s the real bigot?

Great book to understand the early days of wokeism and what happened to american universities