Diversity's False Solace Summary

Author: Walter Benn Michaels is the chair of the Department of English at the University of Illinois at Chicago teaching literary theory, and American literature. Michaels has also has multiple essays and books published such as Against Theory, The shape of the Signifier, and Diversity's False Solace

Title: Diversity’s False Solace. The title of the piece comes from the point the author is attempting to convey to the reader, said claim is colleges use race based affirmative action as to create diversity, but at the same time remove a calling for socioeconomic class based affirmative action. The lack of diversity among class level is what's hiding behind race diversity thus showing how diversity in higher education is missing a huge component.

Publication Info Diversity’s False Solace, Walter Benn Michaels, New York Times, 2004. This

essay is a chapter in one of Michael's books published in the New York Times as to convey the message to a broader audience than those who would be reader Michale book as it carries a message very applicable to a large populus.

Claim: Michaels claims in his piece Diversity’s False Solace that the action of race based affirmative action within higher education is just a front to hide the economic inequality of those accepted allowing wealth preference to exist with little protest as the college looks live a diverse mix of students.

This front then prevents many from getting into many colleges while keeping the public happy with a cover up.

Purpose: Michaels has published his claim as he wishes to reveal how he sees the purpose of affirmative action in higher education as a front of racial diversity to hide the lack of any class based affirmative action leaving little opportunity for the very low income. Michaels express great satisfaction in how he see affirmative action used basically allowing the rich to triumph while looking like everything is fine and diverse.

Audience : The audience of Michael's writing is those involved with colleges namely faculty students and parents of those students, Students and parents who will be dealing with colleges admission soon or not so soon, and those who might not necessarily think of college as a

possibility.

Context/Occasion: Michael's wrote this piece as to project his dissatisfaction as a member of a college faculty with all the praise racial diversity has gained when in his mind he just see as process of “battling over what skin color the rich kids should have”

Language: The language of the piece is that of an informal fashion as Michaels repeatedly uses the view of I in addition to offering opinions on the subjects of the writing.

How do Michael's' ideas relate to Golden's? : Michaels and Golden share similar ideals when it comes to wealth preference in college admissions and how it is often overlooked for a variety of reasons of the general public. Golden and Michaels also share a similarity in their writing in a voice that is warning the reader of wealth preference in college. The difference in the two writers pieces cois in how the reader is warned about wealth preference, Golden tells of how colleges seek out wealthy students and give them preference whereas Michaels writes about how colleges use race affirmative action to hide the fact that there is no class based affirmative action.

How do Michael's' ideas to Krugman's? : Krugman and Michales ideas share a similar core point that states the wealthy have set themselves up to remain wealthy while others suffer and due to policy anything that appears to assist in leveling the playing field only further helps them. Krugman supports his point with example such as estate tax and other such policies, while Michaels supports the argument with the disguised purpose of race based affirmative action. The primary difference in the two arguments comes with what level of wealth the writing is focused on. Krugman focuses on how the super wealthy form an aristocracy. Michaels differs slightly in that he expresses how all levels of the wealthy shut out those who are considered poor by societal standard.