By Mark Grueter

Most human beings seek the company of those similar to them. This is not always done consciously, but it feels natural for us to want to spend time with others who have interests, values, even backgrounds comparable to our own. In addition to food and sex, we seek stimulating conversation and laughs. For instance, why would I want to break bread with someone who finds Rousseau's Discourses bland or Larry David's HBO show unexceptional? Well, because one of the peculiar aspects of life is that we sometimes have very little or almost nothing in common with some of our closest friends.

There is something both unnerving and intriguing about having to fraternize with people who are ostensibly much different from us. At first, you think you will never get along, and at first you probably do not. But then sometimes, after awhile, you start seeing qualities in people that were not at first apparent. We all have our examples.

Many of us flocked to the Graduate Faculty because we hoped to meet students and teachers with similar interests. One does not come to the GF hoping to encounter the disciples of Milton Friedman just as one does not attend a Pat Buchanan rally with the desire to drink beer with illegal immigrants. Meeting more people like me was something I craved because I had been realizing my literary and intellectual interests were growing further and further apart from those of my existing friends. But I was also craving debate and a lively discussion of the issues.

In the September issue of The Atlantic Monthly, in an article neatly titled “People Like Us,” conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks openly confesses that he, and most of his right-wing friends, are apathetic toward “diversity” and that he is tired of pretending to care about it. Moreover, he argues that the Left is not interested in real diversity either, even though it affects to worship the concept. Brooks ends the piece on this note: “Look around your daily life. Are you really in touch with the broad diversity of American life? Do you care?”

The essay is insightful to the extent that his premise - that most have little regard for diversity - is a reasonable and provocative one. And Brooks does an effective job exposing the homogenization of almost all American institutions, neighborhoods, etc., even in areas where we might not imagine a lack of diversity exists – in urban regions and in seemingly liberal outfits. On political homogenization Brooks writes, “Within their validating communities, liberals and conservatives circulate half-truths about the supposed awfulness of the other. These distortions are believed because it feels good to believe them.” Brooks is talented at making readers think he is being self-critical, but the point he is making nevertheless has its effect. Market research, which Brooks eagerly cites, shows how predictably and efficiently Americans cluster according to lifestyles, attitudes and politics. However, by segmenting off and forming our own little communities, argues Brooks, we make ourselves much happier, and so this is ultimately a good thing. But this is where Brooks gets it wrong. He might have labeled his essay “Diversity is Overrated.” It did make me wonder if much of the Left, and specifically the GF, actually agree with Brooks' conclusion, even if they are unaware of it.

“Diversity” is obviously a loaded term: Brooks and I use it in a literal and therefore broad sense. Along with standard definitions, diversity can relate to thoughts and attitudes. After all, what is the point of any kind of diversity if it is not to create a level of tension that eventually leads to newer understandings? The significance of this will become clearer as this essay progresses.

We can examine our own institution as a microcosm for this larger trend of segmentation, and more specifically, intellectual segregation or tribalism. Here is a personal anecdote: During my first semester at the GF I learned that many issues are off the proverbial table. In a course aptly titled “Modernity and Its Discontents,” a fellow student was decrying the use of computers and televisions, noting that Americans never even consider where and how these luxury items are constructed. In other words, nobody gives a damn about the horrible fact that corporations are exploiting people, and sometimes children, in foreign countries in order to dole these products out. It is a point I agree with, but it is also a point I think is not so blatantly one-sided. I spoke up and made the elemental counterpoint that these corporations were providing jobs, however miserable, where none before existed. A job is better than no job. I was attempting to open up the discussion so that we could perhaps talk about the realities of the system and how best to cope with those realities. It is not indefensible to argue that all nations go through cycles, and that while conditions are far from ideal in the developing world, they are much better than they would be without global capitalism. It is, in fact, the popular view.

Instead of opening a discussion, however, my remarks had the effect of closing one. My words were met with a collective howl, as if I had just made the case that Hitler had it all right. “You are not serious, are you?” someone asked me as the class was coming to an end. I was serious to the extent that I thought the viewpoint warranted a proper rebuttal. Apparently, it did not.

Furthermore, what percentage of the GF community supported employing the American military to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein? 1 percent? Less? Granted, this could simply mean that GFers are just much more informed and/or compassionate than those who supported the war. But whether or not the GF was “right” to oppose the war is irrelevant here. This essay is concerned with something else. GF Dean Richard J. Bernstein describes this school as a place that “seeks to cultivate a restless, critical imagination.” My question is: how is it best to accomplish this? By having everyone agree with one another? By having dissent literally shouted down? In other words, is the student body sufficiently diverse and open in its attitudes and opinions? My claim for the moment is that it is not, and that the school is only hurting its own cause by way of a lack of diversity or opposition.

I maintain that if I compiled a questionnaire addressing all of the social and political issues facing America and the world and distributed it throughout the GF we would see a staggeringly high degree of uniformity in the responses. This lack of dissent does not fit with the history of this school. The problem is not the left-wing perspectives themselves, but rather the sheer uniformity of the views, and the culture of conformity here that reinforces those views. In a culture as such, ideas and the people who espouse them become rigid, self-righteous and, in that way, undaring, and, ultimately conservative. For it is distinctly illiberal to create and uphold an institutional culture that manages to prevent the development of alternative/opposing views on issues, like Iraq, that are certainly complex and also highly controversial in most academic circles.

I recently sat down with Bernstein to discuss these matters. I asserted that, within the GF, we live in a politically homogenous culture. He questioned this, noting that the Philosophy and Psychology departments are, for the most part, apolitical. As I reflect, I think well yes, but the students themselves typically hold cultural and political attitudes that correspond with the status quo here. He is also, quite rightly, skeptical of the very term “diversity” because it does not take into account “significant intellectual differences.” For both of us, this notion speaks more to the true meaning of diversity. Ethnicity, he suggests, is not always a sound indicator of diversity. As a brief example, he alludes to the many professors from India now teaching in this country who think exactly like American conservative Republicans. However, he contends that if the GF were to hire “neoconservatives” it would not improve the academic environment. Although interesting in themselves, I did not feel as though these responses wholly dealt with my assertion that the student body is politically, and I would add Culturally homogenous.

The faculty, at least, was not always this tendentious. Liberal Studies Chair James Miller highlighted some of the diverse history of the GF for me. Leo Strauss's work is thought by many to have laid the intellectual foundation for George W. Bush's foreign policy. Strauss, of course, was a prominent member of the Graduate Faculty from 1938 to 1948. Moreover, Assistant Dean Robert Kostrzewa points out how the GF used to be a haven for all intellectuals and scholars fleeing Nazi persecution, conservative, liberal and apolitical alike. He adds that the disappearance of conservatives on the faculty over time was a gradual, almost natural process. Miller tells me that one of the GF's most celebrated figures, Hannah Arendt, was “politically ambiguous,” or hard to classify as either liberal or conservative. But what about today? Where is the dissent and opposition now? And what about the student body, which is what primarily concerns me?

To curb my zeal, Kostrzewa reminds me that “graduate school is not exclusively about opening minds; it is also about advancing research and knowledge in any given field. In quality research universities, these two goals are equally important and should reinforce one another.” Graduate school is not supposed to resemble a “talk show,” argues Kostrzewa. True enough, but surely in any academic setting debates ought to be created where none exist. Many, and I would argue most, of us are not here to find mentors who will allow us to help them with research. MA students, or those less likely to want to play the role of apprentice, outnumber PhD candidates by more than two to one at the GF. I am, however, not advocating any radical transformation of policy; this is merely a case for increasing levels of diversity, debate and integration in the GF, so as to embolden all facets of it, including the research element.

Miller defends the school, arguing that we have “the most cosmopolitan student body in North America.” He also finds it interesting to note that we have a significant number of students from Eastern and Central Europe who are hostile to Marxism, as well as suspicious of postmodernist theories. Miller explains that there is no political litmus test at the GF. However, the interest here is in promoting social change, so it may be counterproductive to attract people who are not interested in social change. This sentiment, along with the points Kostrzewa made and the examples already cited, suggests that the GF considers advancing research and the traditional practice of apprenticeship a higher priority than debate fostered by intellectual diversity. But something does not add up here, because increased opposition should only serve to refine and perfect the research process, not dilute it. This is merely the Socratic Method, in action.

While chatting about diversity, Dean Bernstein expresses regret that the GF did not try harder to hire African-American intellectuals during the 1960s and 70s. It was a missed opportunity to diversify and strengthen the faculty. But he says the GF is still diverse because of the broad international component within both the faculty and the student body. Twenty-eight percent of its students are from a wide array of foreign countries, and this definitely helps. But the GF, according to Bernstein, needs to do a better job in considering class as a factor in recruiting, in order to achieve economic diversity. Bernstein agrees that achieving various levels of diversity is beneficial, if not vital.

So what about the “significant intellectual differences” which Bernstein referenced earlier and considers essential to any concept of diversity? He told me about how the GF has just received a grant from one of our trustee's who shares my concerns. The grant money will sponsor a public policy lecture series that pits Right intellectuals against Left intellectuals. Bernstein mentioned a potential debate between former drug czar William Bennett and former Harvard scholar Cornel West. He then wondered whether or not GF students would even be interested in something like this. Bernstein believes debate should be kept alive and that events like these are potentially useful, but he also believes that GF students are not necessarily interested in the “debate” aspect of education. Most students come here, says Bernstein, to work with certain professors while making use of the unique curriculums that specific departments have to offer. Okay, but is not one of the jobs of an educator, at any level, to continually challenge student biases and preconceptions on fundamental issues?

In discussing diversity, I mean to project the consequences of either political or ideological diversity, or a lack thereof. The ultimate significance of diversity is that it should establish friction and the perpetual presence of skepticism and opposition, which are so essential to the learning process and to a higher level of understanding. This should be the goal of all philosophical or liberal studies. Note that I am not advocating pointless diversification of the various fields within departments. For instance, it would be senseless for a psychology department that is experimentally based to accept a student whose main interest is Jung.

As referenced earlier, the problem of homogenization is certainly not GF-specific or grad school specific. This is ultimately a much more acute and far-reaching phenomenon, affecting communities and organizations of every description. All groups, striving for integrity, in my view, should fight against the process of sameness and separation and even the sense of community. The GF is just one - perhaps imperfect - example of a growing trend toward intellectual, political, social and cultural tribalism that runs counter to the Enlightenment ideal of a collection of freethinking individuals. Identity groups and “institutions” have the effect of sacrificing individualism for the sake of a certain cause. But in striving for these causes, individual critical faculties must, to a certain extent, soften in order to attain common goals. As this effect multiplies, people grow further and further away from their own thoughts and their own ability to make independent determinations.

Without constant exposure to an opposition, minds lose focus and ideas lose meaning. Intellectual segmentation has the effect of weakening understanding. For example, I think that the Left is correct to criticize the Right for failing to even consider any alleged “root causes” of terrorism. But the Right will never acknowledge this blindness because of its own stubbornness and refusal to listen to views that offend them. Similarly, the Right is correct to criticize the Left for arrogantly failing to understand both why poor, rural voters choose Republicans and why they themselves are unable to influence public policy. The Left is content to assert that poor people are just uneducated victims - dupes of the media and money, etc. and that Americans in general are just greedy, crude and stupid. These are the sort of traps that self-validating communities, like the GF or the Bush White House, can fall into.

The lack of geographic diversity here only intensifies the environment of half-truths being circulated about people unlike us. The GF boasts of “a cosmopolitan student body of nearly 1,000.” In 2002, there were exactly 1,031 students enrolled in the GF. But 54% resided in New York before attending and just under 10% came from across the bridge in Jersey. If you combine the 28% who are international then we discover that less than 10% of students at the GF were residents of one of the other 48 American states. And while in one sense New York City is one of the most diverse places in the world, in another, it is not much more than a collection of unmixed racial, ethnic, class, political and intellectual enclaves and thus not much different than anywhere else. With the New School, other college campuses and certain sections of lower Manhattan becoming enclaves unto themselves. And there are all the different neighborhoods; some people always hang out in Williamsburg, Brooklyn while others usually stay on the Upper East Side, or whatever. Even here, we still manage to segregate.

“The very concept of cultural pluralism was invented at the New School,” writes Bernstein in his message on the web site. If this is so, we should be constantly updating, reinventing and celebrating that notion. In graduate school, applicants' personal statements are used to determine whether or not a student's interest corresponds with any of the existing faculty members. The intellectual homogenization of schools is actually part of the design as perceived compatibility is one of the key factors in determining acceptance. Essentially, there is an inherent conflict here between the stated objective of diversity and the reality of finding like-minded students to join up with existing professors. If we stick with this practice then the only way to diversify the student body is by diversifying the faculty.

All I am asking the GF to do is to live up to its own standard and embrace pluralism. I agree with Bernstein: the GF does not necessarily need to hire neoconservative professors in order to diversify itself. So what else can be done? From my discussions with leaders at the GF I learned the school primarily relies on reputation to attract people. Students find the GF, not the other way around. But in light of all the financial troubles, why stubbornly hang onto this practice? What sort of principle is being upheld here?

Unfortunately, the admissions office declined to meet with me to discuss these issues. But I believe a policy of wider recruitment, if put into practice, would inject the school with much needed irreverence, with people who would indirectly be more inclined to challenge GF conventions. The GF should simply recruit gifted undergraduates/twentysomethings like most other schools. Not everyone, at the age of 21, is settled into an ideological worldview or philosophical bent. Most ambitious kids just want to receive a first-rate education. This approach could only strengthen and energize the academic atmosphere. Recruiters should set targets beyond their traditional circles. This does not mean conservatives per se need to be brought in. Practically anyone one inch to the right of the mayor of Oakland would be a rebel here, almost instantaneously. It simply implies working to attract intelligent people with different experiences who one would not typically associate with the GF.

This is not about embracing all points of view; it is about encouraging skepticism and promoting individualism, so as to question, refresh and vitalize our own points of view. The trouble is not that the GF is “too far to the left” or anything like that. The problem the GF faces, in my view, is one of conformity and dogmatism or, incestuous amplification. Sometimes there is no real attempt to appreciate nuance and to understand and pursue alternative perspectives, and this leads to intellectual indolence and an inappropriately high level of intolerance.

We have an exceptionally interesting faculty. Why not give more students an opportunity to learn from it? Enlist a broader audience in the cause. Since everyone from Bob Kerrey to James Miller agree that all superlative academic institutions thrive on critical minds, why not make more of an effort to find those minds? Rely less on perceived “compatibility” and more on capacity for critical thought. I go so far as to argue that the GF court students who they know will actively and intelligently challenge the norms and prejudices of the institution. The sparks that will fly out of the clashing of minds and collision of ideas is precisely what is required to reawaken this place. This is a policy only worthy of a school that seeks to cultivate restless and critical imaginations.

Moreover, Miller emphasizes the importance of maintaining a foothold in mainstream social sciences so that students can get jobs after graduation. So the GF does want to remain relevant, while sticking to its guns. What I am suggesting can only contribute to this goal of becoming more relevant, while aiding the traditions of the school, by way of challenging them in a more immediate way. The validity of a belief or practice often relies on its ability to hold up against criticism.

What troubles both Bernstein and Miller the most is the lack of economic diversity at the GF. My idea addresses this problem. By widening the scope of recruitment, revenues will increase, the application process will become more competitive and eventually, needs-based tuition help will become a reality. But we need to open the doors first.

Adopting a proposal that would increase student diversity and opposition at the GF will demonstrate that David Brooks is wrong about some of us. Yes, we all have a tendency to group together with people who think like us, but some of us understand, Mr. Brooks, that it is crucial to balance this out, even to wage war against this inclination, for the sake of our own education and the refinement of our positions. We need to deliberately associate with those who think differently because we know it will make us richer for it. I obviously disagree with Brooks. I appreciate confrontation and the feeling of discomfort; it makes me happy. We should force ourselves to integrate. It is instructive and it necessitates the growth processes.

The future of the New School, the GF or Leftist education depends on its ability to acquire a truer understanding of how and why other people – even conservatives - think. If we care to understand why Bush acts the way he does and why intelligent, opened-minded people support him, might there not be more students and/or professors here from Bush Country – the south, Midwest and rural areas in general – to help explain it?

More importantly, the future of Leftist education depends on its ability to equip students with the skills of debate and rhetoric. Advancing social research does not do much good unless that information can be communicated, and unless its originators are able to skillfully thwart reactionary elements that will attempt to suppress it. And finally, the future of Leftist education and education in general, depends upon student abilities to integrate, to diversify and to engage in authentic interaction with people unlike them.