.
Writing critically 173
crit
8c
Note Critical writing is not summarizing. You may write a
summary to clarify for yourself what an author says or what an
image shows, and you may briefly summarize a work in your own
larger piece of writing. But your job in critical writing is not just to
report; it is to transmit your analysis, interpretation, synthesis, and
perhaps evaluation of the text.
Writing critically about a text
The following essay by the student Charlene Robinson re-
sponds to Thomas Sowell’s “Student Loans.” Robinson arrived at
her response through the process of critical reading outlined in this
chapter and then by gathering and organizing her ideas, developing
her own central idea (or thesis) about Sowell’s text, and drafting
and revising until she believed she had supported her central idea.
Robinson does not assume that her readers see the same things
in Sowell’s essay or share her views, so she offers evidence of Sow-
ell’s ideas in the form of direct quotations, summaries, and para-
phrases (restatements in her own words). (See pp. 617–22 for more
on these techniques.) Robinson then documents these borrowings
from Sowell using the style of the Modern Language Association
(MLA): the numbers in parentheses are page numbers in the book
containing Sowell’s essay, listed at the end as a “work cited.” (See
Chapter 47 for more on MLA style.)
1
Weighing the Costs
In his essay “Student Loans,” the economist Thomas Sowell chal-
lenges the US government’s student-loan program for several reasons: a
scarce resource (taxpayers’ money) goes to many undeserving students,
a high number of recipients fail to repay their loans, and the easy avail-
ability of money has led to both lower academic standards and higher
college tuitions. Sowell wants his readers to “weigh the costs of things”
(133) in order to see, as he does, that the loan program should not receive
so much government funding. But does he provide the evidence of cost
and other problems to lead the reader to agree with him? The answer is
no, because hard evidence is less common than debatable and unsup-
ported assumptions about students, scarcity, and the value of education.
Sowell’s portrait of student-loan recipients is questionable. It is
based on averages, some statistical and some not, but averages are often
deceptive. For example, Sowell cites college graduates’ low average debt of
$7,000 to $9,000 (131) without acknowledging the fact that many stu-
dents’ debt is much higher or giving the full range of statistics. Similarly,
Sowell dismisses “heart-rending stories” of “the low-income student with a
Introduction
Summary of
Sowell’s essay
Robinson’s crit-
ical question
Thesis state-
ment
First main
point
Evidence for
first point: para-
phrases and
quotations from
Sowell’s text
AARO.9514.ch08pp150-178.qxd 12/29/05 10:42 AM Page 173
174 Forming a critical perspective
crit
8c
huge debt” as “not at all typical” (132), yet he invents his own exagger-
ated version of the typical loan recipient: an affluent slacker (“Rocke-
fellers” and “Vanderbilts”) for whom college is a “place to hang out for a
few years” sponging off the government, while his or her parents clear a
profit from making use of the loan program (132). Although such students
(and parents) may well exist, are they really typical? Sowell does not offer
any data one way or the other—for instance, how many loan recipients
come from each income group, what percentage of loan funds go to each
group, how many loan recipients receive significant help from their par-
ents, and how many receive none.
Another set of assumptions in the essay has to do with “scarcity”:
“There is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it,”
Sowell says (131). This statement appeals to readers’ common sense, but
does the “lesson” of scarcity necessarily apply to the student-loan pro-
gram? Sowell omits many important figures needed to prove that the na-
tion’s resources are too scarce to support the program, such as the total
cost of the program, its percentage of the total education budget and the
total federal budget, and its cost compared to the cost of defense, Medi-
care, and other expensive programs. Moreover, Sowell does not mention the
interest paid by loan recipients, even though the interest must offset some
of the costs of running the program and covering unpaid loans.
The most fundamental and most debatable assumption underlying
Sowell’s essay is that higher education is a kind of commodity that not
everyone is entitled to. In order to diminish the importance of graduates’
average debt from education loans, Sowell claims that a car loan will prob-
ably be higher (131). This comparison between education and an automo-
bile implies that the two are somehow equal as products and that an af-
fordable higher education is no more a right than a new car is. Sowell also
condemns the “irresponsible” students who drop out of school and “the in-
creasingly easy availability of college to people who are not very serious
about getting an education” (132). But he overlooks the value of encour-
aging education, including education of those who don’t finish college or
who aren’t scholars. For many in the United States, education has a greater
value than that of a mere commodity like a car. And even from an eco-
nomic perspective such as Sowell’s, the cost to society of an uneducated
public needs to be taken into account.
Sowell writes with conviction, and his concerns are valid: high taxes,
waste, unfairness, declining educational standards, obtrusive government.
However, the essay’s flaws make it unlikely that Sowell could convince
Evidence for
first point:
Sowell’s
omissions
Transition to
second main
point
Second main
point
Evidence for
second point:
Sowell’s
omissions
Third main
point
Evidence for
third point:
paraphrases
and quotations
of Sowell’s text
Conclusion
Acknowledg-
ment of Sow-
ell’s concerns
AARO.9514.ch08pp150-178.qxd 12/29/05 10:42 AM Page 174
readers who do not already agree with him. He does not support his
portrait of the typical loan recipient, he fails to demonstrate a lack of
resources for the loan program, and he neglects the special nature of
education compared to other services and products. Sowell may have
the evidence to back up his assumptions, but by omitting it he himself
does not truly weigh the costs of the loan program.
Work Cited
Sowell, Thomas. “Student Loans.” Is Reality Optional? and Other Essays.
Stanford: Hoover, 1993. 131-33.
—Charlene Robinson (student)
Writing critically 175
crit
8c
Summary of
three main
points
Return to
theme of
introduction:
weighing costs
Reference to
complete
source (in MLA
style)
Writing critically about an image
The essay below, by the student John Latner, responds to the
Time magazine advertisement. As you’ve seen earlier in this chapter,
Latner examined the image over several stages, each time discover-
ing more in it and gradually developing his own ideas. In his paper
Latner takes pains to be sure that readers will see the image as he
does: he reproduces the ad, captions it, and clearly describes its fea-
tures. He cites his sources using the style of the Modern Language
Association (Chapter 47). (All but one of Latner’s text citations lack
page numbers because the sources themselves are not numbered.)
Note An image is a source just as a written work is, and like a
written source it must be acknowledged. Latner cites the Time ad
both in the image caption and in the list of works cited. If he pub-
lished his paper online, he would also need to seek the copyright
owner’s permission to use the image. See pages 633–34 for more
about acknowledging sources and pages 635–37 for more about
permissions for online publication.
2
Playing It Safe
At first glance, the “Boy at Security” advertisement for Time maga-
zine (fig. 1) is both a humorous and a provocative depiction of a troubling
subject: airport security since September 11, 2001. A boy with an angelic
face and a nervous expression stands obediently as a security agent passes
a large scanner over his chest. The familiar red border and banner of a
Time cover surround the scanner, making it the bull’s-eye of a target. The
caption reads, “At what point do national security and common sense col-
lide?” and then “Join the conversation.” This eye-catching ad implies that
by reading Time magazine consumers will gain alternative perspectives on
important issues. However, a close examination of the ad reveals that it
actually reinforces public opinion instead of challenging it.
Introduction
Description of
the image
Thesis state-
ment
AARO.9514.ch08pp150-178.qxd 12/29/05 10:42 AM Page 175
Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your
convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any
representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated “AS IS” and “AS
AVAILABLE” and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY
AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY,
ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning
Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints Terms and Conditions and by using the
machine generated PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of
the machine generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom.
Schools and Businesses Should Not Promote Diversity
Author: Heather Mac Donald
Editor: James D. Torr
Date: 2005
From: Race Relations
Publisher: Greenhaven Press
Series: Opposing Viewpoints
Document Type: Viewpoint essay
Length: 2,060 words
Content Level: (Level 4)
Lexile Measure: 1270L
Full Text:
Article Commentary
Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor for City Journal and the author of the book Are Cops Racist? In the following viewpoint
she argues that businesses’ and universities’ obsession with creating racially diverse campuses and workplaces harms both
minorities and society as a whole. Many businesses and universities, she contends, cannot find enough qualified minority applicants,
so they lower their standards. The poorly qualified minority students then often drop out of the school, she notes, or perform at a
lower level than their coworkers. Organizations have embraced diversity-centered policies, she concludes, as a way of avoiding
discussion of the real problem: the dearth of qualified black and Hispanic applicants.
As you read, consider the following questions:
What proportion of minority law students admitted under affirmative action policies in 1991 dropped out, according to Mac1.
Donald?
Why do over 60 percent of minorities report experiencing “race-related barriers” to professional advancement, in the author’s2.
opinion?
A recent pseudo-scandal at the Justice Department is yet another depressing reminder of intractable racial taboos although not
the kind we usually hear about from hand-wringing pundits and civil-rights scolds.
At the end of October [2003], the New York Times accused the Justice Department of covering up a study critical of its “diversity”
hiring and management. The department had posted the study a $360,000 piece of boilerplate from the diversity-consulting
industry on its website. About half the text had been very visibly blacked out. Among the redacted portions, gleefully reported on
the Times’s front page, were such standard “diversity” findings as the fact that more minority lawyers than white ones perceive
“stereotyping, harassment and racial tension” in their workplace.
For the Times and likeminded [George W.] Bush administration critics, the story was a glorious twofer: Not only was Attorney General
John Ashcroft, that scourge of civil rights, abusing his minority employees, but he was trying to conceal it. Senator Edward Kennedy
blasted the department for ignoring “diversity” issues. Representatives John Conyers Jr. and Jerrold Nadler issued a demand, in self-
professed “outrage,” that the Justice Department’s inspector general investigate Diversitygate.
This scandal was a fake. The missing portions of the diversity study (later exhumed by a computer sleuth) had been redacted for a
perfectly good reason: A rule in the Freedom of Information Act exempts advisory and “predecisional” material from disclosure. The
deletions contained positive information about the department, just as the posted text contained “negative” findings, such as the
higher attrition rate of minority hires.
The Diversity Charade
But there was a scandal in the episode, albeit a longstanding one: the enduring charade about minority underachievement in the
workplace. Every month, businesses and government agencies lavish vast sums on diversity “consultants” to come up with every
reason other than the correct one the skills gap for why they do not have a proportional number of black and Hispanic
employees. And, just as regularly, elite opinion-makers hold up the results of such sham studies as proof of American racism.
The Justice Department’s recent diversity study, produced by KPMG Consulting, was a classic of the genre. Here was page after
page of complicated graphs calculating to the hundredth of a percentage point the ratio of black, Hispanic, and female attorneys in
every possible position within the department. Here was the disparagement of the white male “dominant culture norms,” along with
the call to “be more creative about defining qualifications” (i.e., to gut standards for minorities). Here was the inevitable push for tying
the pay of managers to their promotion of minorities. But, above all else, here was the scrupulous, all-encompassing silence on every
page of the document about why this futile exercise was undertaken in the first place: the dearth of qualified minority attorneys to fill
those minutely tabulated Justice Department slots.
The real missing data from the Justice diversity study are these: In 2002, only 29 black applicants were qualified without a racial
boost for a top-ten law school (from which the elite branches of the Justice Department recruit), compared with 4,500 college seniors
nationwide, as Jonathan Kay has reported in Commentary. The situation was identical a decade ago: Only 24 black applicants met
the academic requirements for the top 10 percent of law schools in 1991, according to Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom. Naturally,
those schools were not about to let the lack of preparedness among minority applicants stand in the way of demonstrating the
schools’ high-minded embrace of racial balance. They admitted 420 blacks to their first-year classes anyway, thus ensuring that
nearly all would start out with a disadvantage compared with their white and Asian peers.
The results of such racial double standards are predictable: Over a fifth of affirmative-action law students from the 1991 cohort, for
example, dropped out. With few exceptions, black students post grades near the bottom of their class. As a result, almost none
qualify for law review. The bar exam failure rate for affirmative-action beneficiaries is far higher than for merit-based admits. Nearly a
third of the 1991 quota admits failed after three attempts, a rate seven times that of whites, according to the Thernstroms.
Ignoring the Racial Skills Gap
The racial charade requires that law-school administrators express deep puzzlement about such facts, even though their own
admissions policies produced the disparity. The dean of Vanderbilt Law School, Kent D. Syverud, recently told the Chronicle of
Higher Education that the lack of minority representation on the school’s law journals is “one of the biggest challenges I’ve faced as
dean.” Yet Syverud defended the use of racial preferences in law-school admissions in the [June 2003] Supreme Court affirmative
action case Grutter v. Bollinger,1 so he is merely reaping what he has sown. True to form, many law schools, like New York University
and the University of Pennsylvania, have rejiggered traditional law-review requirements to guarantee the presence of face-saving
blacks and Hispanics on the review masthead.
The genius of the diversity charade is to turn a supply problem into a demand problem. The reason the Justice Department does not
have a proportional sampling of black and Hispanic attorneys is simple: The numbers just aren’t there. But the diversity industry tells
us that the real reason behind the lack of racial proportionality is demand: Employers are not trying hard enough to recruit minority
employees, and when they do hire them, they subject them to racism which can be rooted out only by more diversity-industry
interventions.
A fail-safe source for proving work-site racism is the minority employee survey. In 1990, New York’s most exclusive law firms noticed
that they didn’t have many black partners. The obvious explanation inadequate supply of partnership material was taboo from
the start. So New York’s legal titans began the arduous process of ignoring the obvious. Working through the bar association, they
hived off into a decade-long series of diversity committees and subcommittees, among whose initiatives was a poll of minority
associates about their work experiences. Eureka! Here was an explanation for low minority headcount that the firms could live with:
According to the subcommittee on minority retention, over 60 percent of black lawyers reported “race-related barriers to their
professional development.” Similarly, the recent Justice Department diversity study found that “significantly more” minorities
perceived racism on the job than whites.
The Red Herring of Racism
Now what is the cause of this perception? It may of course be the case that these elite employers, despite their years of schooling in
the country’s most liberal institutions and despite their strenuous efforts to find as many black employees as they can, are in fact
racist. But here is an alternative possibility: Affirmative-action beneficiaries, having been admitted to organizations for which they are
significantly less qualified than their peers, experience difficulties performing up to the norm and attribute those difficulties to their
environment. Find an honest partner at a high-powered law firm, for example, and he will acknowledge, only on deep background,
that many black associates struggle mightily with legal writing. But racial prejudice is the easy culprit and little wonder. Minority
students are fed a steady diet of victimology in colleges and law schools. Critical Race Studies courses in law schools, for example,
maintain that legal rationality silences the minority voice. So, it is hardly surprising that overmatched minority attorneys blame bias for
their plight.
The diversity charade’s most bizarre feature is this: Employers and universities would rather take the rap for racism than tell the truth
about minority underperformance. After the poll showing that black New York attorneys blame their firms’ bigotry for their lack of
advancement, the most that those firms would meekly say in their own defense was that such “perceptions are not based on the
animus that we normally associate with racial discrimination.” An understatement, if there ever was one.
Far from possessing “animus” against blacks, New York’s most prestigious firms, like the law elite everywhere, spend hundreds of
thousands of dollars a year on diversity recruiting, diversity support groups, and diversity social functions like the party hosted last fall
by the firm Paul Weiss. Young minority law associates from across the city were invited. The fancy Judson Grill was rented out, John
Payton, the black attorney who argued Grutter spoke (gloating about the victory), and guests left with goody bags containing diversity
paperweights, copies of the Grutter opinion, and a magazine called Diversity Inc. with articles on how to tell if firms value you
guessed it diversity.
But faced with the choice of copping to bias or explaining the difficulty of finding qualified minority applicants, there’s not a prominent
organization that won’t fall on its sword as a racist…. And so the New York Bar, skewered by its black associates, dutifully ordered
itself into diversity training and set itself ever more rigorous hiring and promotion goals, as if its members hadn’t already been
frantically trying to find and promote black attorneys. Likewise, the Justice Department, accused by its minority employees of
“harassment and stereotyping” and accused by the press of not hiring and promoting enough minorities, has merely hung its head
and promised to do better through new undertakings like a loan repayment program and more “equitable” assignment of cases.
Although an event sometimes forces momentary honesty about the skills gap, the racial taboo always triumphs in the end. While
covering the recent Supreme Court affirmative-action challenges, for example, even the liberal media could hardly avoid mentioning
the 200-point SAT gap between whites and Asians, on the one hand, and blacks and Hispanics on the other. But those moments
pass without a trace, and the New York Times and other press outlets quickly go back to reporting on the underrepresentation of
minorities in this or that organization as a sign of bias, as the Wall Street Journal did in November [2003], informing readers that “high
turnover among people of color” suggests the employer does not value diversity.
Covering Up the Real Problem
The drive of elite institutions to fill their token roster of minorities, no matter the costs to the tokens or to their own standards, only
perpetuates the racial taboo by giving a false impression. The smattering of black and Hispanic faces on the bench, in law and
medical school classes, and on the brochures of selective colleges makes it harder for the public to grasp how severely minorities lag
behind the norm in reading and math. Worse, preferences keep the institutions that use them on the sidelines of educational reform
and cultural change. Remove their ability to practice racial window-dressing, however, and many would try to actually shrink the skills
gap rather than just cover it up.
The only time the University of California system sought to systematically improve California’s abysmal schools was after the U.C.
Regents, in 1995, banned the use of race in admissions. In response, university administrators launched a massive outreach
program into high schools and elementary schools to prepare minority students for competitive enrollment. Had the Supreme Court
struck down educational preferences this summer, many colleges, law schools, law firms, and businesses would have been forced
into a similar crusade at least until the next dodge for covertly reinstating quotas had emerged.
In her recent decision upholding affirmative action, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor gave colleges and law schools 25
years to continue papering over the racial skills gap. Expect another 25 years of inaction on minority skills, more pseudo-scandals
about low minority representation, and an ever fatter diversity industry laughing all the way to the bank.
Footnotes:Footnotes
1. The Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions program.
Books
Debra van Ausdale and Joe R. Feagin. The First R: How Children Learn Race and Racism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield,
2001.
Michael K. Brown et al. Whitewashing Race: The Myth of a Color-Blind Society. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.
Sheryll Cashin. The Failures of Integration: How Race and Class Are Undermining the American Dream. New York: Public
Affairs, 2004.
Ward Connerly. Creating Equal: My Fight Against Racial Preferences. San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2000.
J. Angelo Corlett. Race, Racism, and Reparations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003.
Ellis Cose. Color-Blind: Seeing Beyond Race in a Race-Obsessed World. New York: HarperCollins, 1997.
Faye J. Crosby. Affirmative Action Is Dead: Long Live Affirmative Action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004.
Dinesh D’Souza. The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society. New York: Free Press, 1995.
Robert M. Entman and Andrew Rojecki. The Black Image in the White Mind: Media and Race in America. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2000.
Joe R. Feagin and Karyn D. McKinney. The Many Costs of Racism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003.
Walter Feinberg. On Higher Ground: Education and the Case for Affirmative Action. New York: Teachers College Press, 1998.
John Gabriel. Whitewash: Racialized Politics and the Media. New York: Routledge, 1998.
Hugh Davis Graham. Collision Course: The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy in America. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Joseph L. Graves Jr. The Race Myth: Why We Pretend Race Exists in America. New York: Dutton, 2004.
Victor Davis Hanson. Mexifornia: A State of Becoming. New York: Encounter Books, 2003.
Cedric Herring, Verna Keith, and Hayward Derrick Horton, eds. Skin Deep: How Race and Skin Complexion Matter in the
“Color-Blind” Era. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2004.
Samuel P. Huntington. Who Are We?: The Challenges to America’s National Identity. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004.
Bruce A. Jacobs. Race Manners: Navigating the Minefield Between Black and White Americans. New York: Arcade, 1999.
Paul M. Kellstedt. The Mass Media and the Dynamics of American Racial Attitudes. New York: Cambridge University Press,
2003.
Randall Kennedy. Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word. New York: Pantheon Books, 2002.
Molefi Kete. Erasing Racism: The Survival of the American Nation. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003.
Ian F. Haney López. Racism on Trial: The Chicano Fight for Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press, 2003.
Heather Mac Donald. Are Cops Racist? Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2003.
Manning Marable. The Great Walls of Democracy: The Meaning of Race in American Life. New York: BasicCivitas Books, 2002.
Deborah Mathis. Yet a Stranger: Why Black Americans Still Don’t Feel at Home. New York: Warner Books, 2002.
John H. McWhorter. Authentically Black: Essays for the Black Silent Majority. New York: Gotham Books, 2003.
Fred L. Pincus. Reverse Discrimination: Dismantling the Myth. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2003.
Dominic J. Pulera. Visible Differences: Why Race Will Matter to Americans in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Continuum,
2002.
Randall Robinson. The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks. New York: Dutton, 2000.
Randall Robinson. The Reckoning: What Blacks Owe to Each Other. New York: Dutton, 2002.
Renee C. Romano. Race-Mixing: Black-White Marriage in Postwar America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003.
Maria P.P. Root. Love’s Revolution: Interracial Marriage. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001.
John David Skrentny, ed. Color Lines: Affirmative Action, Immigration, and Civil Rights Options for America. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 2001.
Stephan Thernstrom and Abigail Thernstrom. America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible. New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1997.
Nick Corona Vaca. The Presumed Alliance: The Unspoken Conflict Between Latinos and Blacks and What It Means for
America. New York: Rayo, 2004.
Cornel West. Race Matters. New York: Vintage Books, 1994.
Lena Williams. It’s the Little Things: Everyday Interactions That Get Under the Skin of Blacks and Whites. New York: Harcourt,
2000.
Linda Faye Williams. The Constraint of Race: Legacies of White Skin Privilege in America. University Park: Pennsylvania State
University Press, 2003.
William J. Wilson. The Bridge over the Racial Divide: Rising Inequality and Coalition Politics. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1999.
Peter Wood. Diversity: The Invention of a Concept. New York: Encounter Books, 2003.
Periodicals
David Cole. “Rainbow School Colors,” Nation, April 16, 2001.
Lani Guinier. “The ‘Quota’ Smokescreen,” Nation, February 10, 2003.
Randall Kennedy. “Interracial Intimacy,” Atlantic Monthly, December 2002.
Lynn Norment. “Black Women White Men, White Women Black Men,” Ebony, November 1999.
John O’Sullivan. “Affirmative Action Forever?” National Review, July 28, 2003.
Tim Padgett and Frank Sikora. “Color-Blind Love,” Time, May 12, 2003.
Maria P.P. Root. “The Color of Love,” American Prospect, April 8, 2002.
Stanley Rothman, Martin Seymour, and Neil Nevitte. “Racial Diversity Reconsidered,” Public Interest, Spring 2003.
Lisbeth B. Schorr. “The O’Connor Project: Can We End Racial Discrimination Without Affirmative Action? Here’s What It Will
Take,” American Prospect, January 2004.
Peter H. Schuck. “Affirmative Action Is Poor Public Policy,” Chronicle of Higher Education, May 2, 2003.
Paul Starr. “The New Politics of Diversity,” American Prospect, June 17, 2002.
Roberto Suro. “Mixed Doubles,” American Demographics, November 1999.
Stuart Taylor Jr. “Ban Racial Preferences, but Keep Affirmative Action,” National Journal, April 14, 2001.
Peter Wood. “Diversity in America,” Society, May/June 2003.
Karl Zinsmeister. “Unchain Our Schools!” American Enterprise, April/May 2003.
G.E. Zuriff. “Is Racial and Ethnic Diversity Educationally Beneficial?” World & I, August 2002.
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale, COPYRIGHT 2006 Gale
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Mac Donald, Heather. “Schools and Businesses Should Not Promote Diversity.” Race Relations, edited by James D. Torr,
Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010161259/OVIC?u=ccsf_main&sid=OVIC&xid=b6cb57fd. Accessed 30 Nov. 2020. Originally
published as “The Diversity Taboo,” Weekly Standard, vol. 9, 26 Jan. 2004.
Gale Document Number: GALE|EJ3010161259