A diversity of one?

Although it was refreshing to read a graduation-related article without a “Beer Trucks” reference, I take issue with the arguments posed by Becki Feinglos and Anne Moriarity in questioning the selection of Mike Lefevre as this year’s student speaker.

Duke prides itself, as it should, on its diverse student body. Promoting diversity as it is typically defined enhances learning, enriches experiences and provides individuals from different backgrounds with equal access to opportunities. That being said, it should not be a factor in the selection of a student speaker for commencement.

Feinglos and Moriarity claim Lefevre’s selection fails to recognize Duke’s diverse graduates. Well, when you find a student who is 51 percent white, 22 percent Asian American, 10 percent black and 6 percent Hispanic, let me know. And then figure out how to address the gender issue. My point is that no single student will ever be demographically representative of a university; there is no such thing as a diversity of one. I understand that Feinglos and Moriarity are citing the overall trend of white, male student speakers, but there can only be one student speaker each year and his or her selection should not be dependent on who was chosen in the past. Assuming the selection committee does its utmost to find the individual best suited for the task, odds are that the student chosen will not be a minority. This is of course not due to any sort of inferiority, but rather the fact that minorities comprise less than half of Duke’s population (see definition of “minority” for clarification). If the Duke community wants student speakers to be more “representative” of the student body, maybe it should increase the number of student speakers and subsequently decrease the amount of time allotted to the keynote speaker. (Those of you in Wallace Wade for Muhammad Yunus know that last year would have been a good time to start.) But if we’re sticking with a lone representative, please don’t bring race and gender into the discussion.

Furthermore, Feinglos and Moriarity only discuss race and gender. Too often we look only at the aspects of diversity that are readily apparent: those we can see with the naked eye. What about socioeconomic background? What about personality traits? What about—perish the thought—a person’s body of work and life experiences? Are these qualities, of which Duke students represent a broad spectrum, somehow less important than gender and skin color?

If you oppose Lefevre’s selection because of his body of work or, as Feinglos and Moriarity argue, because “his voice has been heard enough,” that is perfectly reasonable. But opposing his selection simply on the grounds that he is or is not a certain race or gender is ludicrous and runs contrary to the principles of equality.

Brian Cohen

Master of Environmental Management, ’11