Malchow posts over in his dartblog a quote from the Chronicle of Higher Ed (which I need to read more often)about the gains minorities have made in putting the representation of those minorities on some sort of par with the makeup of society-at-large.
Joe takes this opportunity to ask, "It seems that 'representation' is in parity with population. Is affirmative action still needed?"
Yeah, dumbass. College isn't the Supreme Court--you're not admitted for life. Every year we do this thing called admitting a new class. In each new class, in order to achieve 'parity' in representation (if that's really even the goal, which I would question), the same or approximately the same efforts will be needed every year to maintain that sort of representation.
I'll write and post the promised second part of my response to the Review sometime tonight. For now, let me reiterate one thing to make clear my intent:
My argument is not against liberal education—against its value, against its beauty, even against its utility. My argument is against looking at a collegiate-based core curriculum as a panacea, as a solution without bounds, and against looking at it as a pure reflection of our (American) cultural heritage.