I teach at Berkeley, and I've read thousands of those "personal statements" about diversity. I don't like the prompt, for several reasons--one of which is that it places almost all applicants, including those it is designed to identify, into self-regarding narratives that make dignity hard to maintain.

But in the interest of accuracy, let me observe:

(1) The application asks for this "personal statement" in addition to, not instead of, what we call the "statement of purpose." That latter, which in my department (at least) is far more important in admissions, is where you would talk about the rise of the novel, your theoretical commitments, your big idea about Tristram Shandy, or whatever.

(2) The purpose of the personal statement is to identify candidates for diversity fellowships, and to enable us to identify such candidates using a wider understanding of "diversity" than those for which the word is usually coded--though these remain important, and (in my mind) rightly so.

(3) The danger that the commentator notes above--the danger that it could be used to run admissions decisions through an ideological filter--obviously is real; more likely, I suspect, it nudges applicants to an understanding that they'd better be ready to kiss the ideological rod. However, I've never seen one of these statements used, even tacitly, to disqualify an applicant; and though the hypothetical statement the commentator offers is one the like of which I've never encountered on our applications (itself an instructive fact, of course), I can say that in my own department, such a comment, if attached to an otherwise excellent application, might produce a lot of unsympathetic groans, but would not keep the applicant out.

On the other hand, such a person would probably not get a diversity fellowship, at least not on the basis of that statement. Which, naturally, returns us to the recognition that some kinds of diversity count as diversity and others don't.

"Defenders of the academic status quo"? That's quite the straw man, almost as bad as "those meddling trustees."

I agree with you, by the way, that the UC Berkeley statement is entirely inappropriate. What I object to is the increasingly caricatural portrayal of anyone who disagrees with the conservative critique of academia.

Peter - You are right; I do use that phrase as a shorthand, and I don't always explain what I mean by it or who I mean by it. That has a lot to do with the fact that I've done such explaining a lot on this blog since I started writing it in 2002, and it gets old to rehash. Bloggers tend to regard their sites as comprehensive works on some level -- and don't always feel the responsibility, or have the time, to rehearse the origins and definition of every claim or phrase that has evolved in the course of writing it.

That said -- I note that the problem cuts two ways. Observe your own language about "the conservative critique of academia." Also caricatural -- and more objectionable, since I am one person writing one site who has coined one phrase that only I use, and you are using a stock term that has become common throughout academe, and that is used to dismiss, equate, and denigrate a wide range of criticisms coming from a wide range of vantage points. I am not a conservative, for instance, but I have come to expect to be tarnished as one (it IS tarnishing when academics label you that) when I make certain criticisms. I've seen the same thing happen with KC Johnson -- a strong Obama supporter who is nonetheless pigeonholed as a conservative critic for what strike me as wholly intellectually dishonest reasons.

How about we make a deal: I'll take more time with my phrasing, and you'll agree to take more time with yours?

Erin,

It's a deal... One thing, though: while I apologize for mischaracterizing you, I didn't intend to suggest that there was anything wrong with being a conservative. It's a perfectly respectable intellectual tradition. And this is where I would beg to disagree: saying that someone is conservative is *not* per se offensive or even reductive (though it may be false). I admit that some academics may use that it way, but we know better, don't we?

It is possible to answer these prompts from a conservative viewpoint and still succeed. This I know.

UCLA also uses that same prompt, because, as previously noted, it is a fellowship application prompt -- a fellowship I won without dwelling on issues of race or gender. Essentially what I said was that life can really suck sometimes for reasons that aren't your fault, and sometimes you need a little help to get through things -- help from teachers like the ones who helped me and the one I'd like to be some day -- but ultimately it's your responsibility. The most telling quote I think is this:

"Racism, social dysfunction, and economic deprivation can only be explanations for failure: they are not excuses. A student still needs to make the decision to succeed, and to seek out the support that can help them succeed."

To the extent that I talked about diversity, I was discussing the difficulties of assimilation, but I help assimilation up as a noble goal. There's no way you could read my statement and confuse me with a liberal.

Now, did I get away with this sort of conservative take on the topic because I'm half Mexican?

A friend of mine, who happened to be a gay conservative, said of the radical liberals in our law school when he finally came out: "This is great. They can't attack me. They're sworn to defend me!"

So.... maybe.

Steve and Mr. Lopez point out the institutional context: in the wake of California's outlawing consideration of race, sex or ethnicity in access to education and fellowships, the graduate schools at UC campuses confronted the problem of how to distribute the fellowship funding that was previously reserved for affirmative action. The choice -- which is certainly debatable, but is not dishonest -- was to apply these same funds to address students who had faced and overcome any kind of obstacles or disadvantages in their lives worth noting, and who would contribute any kind of diversity to the program they were attending.

Berkeley's form contains rather more about 'understanding' barriers faced by others than do some of the campuses' forms, though.

The accusation that the universities sought a way to continue affirmative action under another name is worth addressing, but experience at at least one campus tells me that the relevant officers 'play fair': since Prop 209, 'diversity' funding has gone in substantial amounts to persons from working class families, to people with disabilities, and not exclusively to the groups formerly eligible under affirmative action rules. Indeed, although the determinates are always ad hoc an no a priori rules are ever expressed, we've found the single best predictor of qualifying for 'diversity' graduate fellowships at my UC campus is to be the the first in your family tree to have a college degree. That may or may not be good policy, but it's neither crypto-affirmative action nor an attempt to preselect liberals for the profession -- the Berkeley language notwithstanding.