{"id":169264,"date":"2026-02-12T12:09:58","date_gmt":"2026-02-12T20:09:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=169264"},"modified":"2026-02-12T12:15:53","modified_gmt":"2026-02-12T20:15:53","slug":"diversity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=169264","title":{"rendered":"Diversity!"},"content":{"rendered":"

The former dean of Duke’s law school, Paul D. Carrington, published in the Utah Law Review in 1992 a lengthy essay on Diversity!<\/a> It begins: “Diversity! has become the nor de guerre of an aggressive movement among law students and teachers, and some other members of American academic institutions. Although miniature in the numbers it commands, the style of the movement threatens to harm relations and institutions. It promises benefits to few. Despite Diversity’s proclaimed connection with the civil rights movement, its premises and aims conffict with those of that movement. This Article
\nis written to encourage resistance among those who care about the law and the institutions of law teaching, and to encourage opposition by those who care about civil rights.”<\/p>\n

Gemini says: Diversity is often treated as a “sacred value” by intellectual elites, but Alliance Theory<\/a> suggests it functions as a coordination device for a specific political super-alliance. From this perspective, the paper is not a neutral inquiry into demographics; it is a strategic map of current rivalries.<\/p>\n

Diversity as a Signal of Alliance<\/strong><\/p>\n

The paper describes diversity initiatives as “tags” or “markers” used by the liberal super-alliance to assort with likeminded individuals and signal commitment to the group. <\/p>\n

Alliance Theory<\/a> predicts that the specific groups included in “diversity” (e.g., African Americans, women, LGBTQ+ individuals) are those currently viewed as allies by the Democratic party.<\/p>\n

Conversely, groups excluded from these initiatives (e.g., Christians, rural whites, or police officers) are those categorized as political rivals.<\/p>\n

Propagandistic Biases in the Narrative<\/strong><\/p>\n

Victim Biases: The paper emphasizes the grievances of disadvantaged allies to mobilize support from third parties and justify institutional changes.<\/p>\n

Perpetrator Biases: The paper likely downplays or rationalizes any negative consequences of these policies\u2014such as the exclusion of qualified “rival” group members\u2014as a necessary part of a broader moral mission.<\/p>\n

Attributional Biases: Successes for favored groups are attributed to internal talent and “unlocked potential,” while failures are attributed to external “systemic” causes.<\/p>\n

The Strategy of “Concept Creep”<\/strong><\/p>\n

The paper participates in what Pinsof calls “concept creep,” where definitions of “prejudice” or “harm” expand to include subtle behaviors.<\/p>\n

This expansion serves a strategic function: it allows the alliance to attack the reputation of its rivals with greater frequency and “impunity”.<\/p>\n

By framing these social maneuvers as “moral convictions,” the authors attempt to draw third parties to their side while signaling their own loyalty to the “intellectual elite” moiety.<\/p>\n

Tactical Inconsistency<\/strong><\/p>\n

The paper may ignore “diversity of thought” or “religious diversity,” which Alliance Theory explains by noting that these particular forms of diversity would benefit political rivals.<\/p>\n

This inconsistency is not a logical error; it is a “patchwork narrative” designed to advance the interests of the specific coalition of “knowledge workers” and minority groups that make up the liberal alliance.<\/p>\n

ChatGPT says: This paper is an intervention in an active coalition conflict inside elite legal institutions. Carrington is not primarily arguing about admissions policy. He is defending an incumbent elite alliance that governs legal education. The paper is an alliance maintenance document. Its central concern is the preservation of professional authority, internal coordination, and reputational legitimacy within the legal academy. Alliance Theory predicts this move. When a coalition feels its internal norms are being challenged by a rising rival faction, it reframes the conflict as a threat to shared values rather than a power struggle.<\/p>\n

Carrington correctly observes that \u201cDiversity!\u201d functions as a slogan rather than a precise policy. From an alliance perspective, this is the point. Slogans are coalition tags. They identify allies, activate shared grievances, and mark out-group members for suspicion. The Diversity movement is treated in the paper as a coordinated rival alliance attempting to extract resources, positions, and moral authority from institutions previously governed by professional norms rather than demographic bargaining.<\/p>\n

Carrington\u2019s sharp distinction between voluntary affirmative action and compulsory quotas maps cleanly onto Alliance Theory\u2019s distinction between internal discretion and external coercion. Voluntary action preserves elite autonomy. Quotas subordinate the elite to an external coalition that can audit, shame, and punish noncompliance. What Carrington fears is not race consciousness itself, but loss of control over status allocation within the profession.<\/p>\n

Academic freedom is presented as a neutral Enlightenment value. Alliance Theory reads it as an institutional immunity system. It protects incumbents from being forced to redistribute status under moral pressure. When Carrington warns that Diversity diminishes academic freedom, he is describing an alliance vulnerability. External moral enforcement breaks the ability of insiders to manage hierarchy internally.<\/p>\n

Carrington frames multiculturalism as \u201cparticularism\u201d that undermines a shared legal culture. Alliance Theory reframes this as a clash between two coalition logics. The incumbent alliance relies on universalist language to justify its authority. Neutrality, objectivity, and professionalism are coordination norms that allow heterogeneous insiders to trust one another. The rival alliance uses particularist identity claims to bypass those norms and demand redistribution directly. This is not about truth. It is about which coalition\u2019s coordination rules will govern the institution.<\/p>\n

Carrington\u2019s discussion of ideological intolerance, defamation, and \u201cmau-mauing\u201d describes classic alliance enforcement tactics. When a coalition lacks formal power, it uses reputational weapons to discipline opponents. Accusations of racism or sexism function as coalition-level sanctions. They raise the cost of resistance by threatening expulsion from elite moral standing.<\/p>\n

Carrington notes that administrators often attack their own institutions to avoid being targeted. Alliance Theory calls this preemptive defection. Leaders sacrifice institutional authority to signal loyalty to the rising coalition and avoid reputational punishment. This is a predictable outcome when moral enforcement replaces negotiated authority.<\/p>\n

The paper\u2019s critique of judging the past harshly maps onto alliance myth construction. Condemning ancestors legitimizes present redistribution by framing incumbents as beneficiaries of illegitimate advantage. Alliance Theory predicts that rival coalitions will weaponize historical narratives to delegitimize current status holders and weaken resistance.<\/p>\n

Carrington\u2019s deepest concern is that law depends on a super-alliance that transcends faction. Judges and lawyers must suppress subcoalition loyalties to maintain legitimacy. From an alliance perspective, this is not false but incomplete. Super-alliances only hold when members believe the distribution of status is broadly fair. When trust erodes, subcoalitions reassert themselves.<\/p>\n

Carrington correctly identifies that Diversity is not about pedagogy but power. He correctly predicts that moral coercion damages institutional trust. He is wrong to believe neutrality can survive without renegotiating status under changing demographic and political conditions. Alliance Theory suggests that once a rival coalition gains enough moral leverage, appeals to universalism alone cannot restore equilibrium. The conflict must be renegotiated, not moralized away.<\/p>\n

Diversity! is a document from a ruling coalition attempting to preserve autonomy against a rising moral rival. It is not cynical, but it is not neutral. Its language of professionalism, freedom, and civility functions as alliance rhetoric designed to defend control over prestige, hiring, and legitimacy within the legal academy.<\/p>\n

Seen this way, the paper is less a critique of diversity and more a case study in how elite institutions respond when their internal coordination norms are challenged by identity-based coalitions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The former dean of Duke’s law school, Paul D. Carrington, published in the Utah Law Review in 1992 a lengthy essay on Diversity! It begins: “Diversity! has become the nor de guerre of an aggressive movement among law students and … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[29733],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-169264","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-diversity"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t