The enormity of this quote raises several large questions. Do we have a diversity "problem" per se at Wake Forest? Based on the large amount of rhetoric on the issues, the numerous committees formed to investigate and the student-led discussions on related topics, I think the answer must be yes. However, clarification of this "problem" is what constantly proves intractable. There is a systematic failure to properly frame and define the discussion, though taking Mr. Ingram's suggestion would be a good starting point.

Secondly, though it has equal importance, what is meant by the term diversity anyway? The plethora of meanings it can possibly have further muddies the water. When referencing diversity, does the university purport to be working towards racial diversity, ethnic diversity, socioeconomic diversity or all three at once? Because the three are neither mutually inclusive nor exclusive, it is imperative that clarification takes place immediately. By the sheer cost of a university education at any institution, socioeconomic diversity must be attained in a different manner than the fight for ethnic diversity, which has its roots in a wholly different set of circumstances.

Taking from Mr. Ingram again, a further dilemma is accurately trying to define the "goal" of diversity. Changing the label from problem to goal does little if the strategies in attaining that goal are little more than solutions to the old problem. The same article quoted that diversity was at an all time high this year, resting near 14 percent. Nonetheless, this figure was not quantified by a descriptor of what there was actually 14 percent of. If that figure is the percent of African Americans on campus, which I doubt it is, Wake Forest has certainly accomplished a large goal, considering that percentage is slightly higher than the equivalent percent of African Americans in the U.S. population. Or does this figure represent the percentage of students from low-income families? Notice the problem interpreting "diversity" when neither the variable nor a goal is defined.

Many academics in the past 30 years have commented on the intrinsic values of having a diverse student population, through which informal learning can occur -- sharing of previously foreign experiences, building new bridges and so forth. Even Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, in his opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, commented that even though his opinion struck down quota systems, racial diversity in higher education is still a noble goal. Yet the methodology as to attain this goal has always been questionable.

Before reading Mr. Ingram's excellent quote, I read with caution in the same article after reading this phrase: "aimed at improving diversity on campus through the application process." The overtones of a possible affirmative action policy are not implications that should enter a discussion on legally realizing the goals of diversity.

Again, we arrive at the question of goals. If the focus is the application process, at what stage is more emphasis needed in order to achieve more diversity? Current statistics must be analyzed to determine whether the university even receives an adequately proportional number of minority applications. Depending on those findings, the university must then center its recruitment in one of several directions. If the number of applications is adequate but the quality lacking, the university must recruit in a different manner than if minority applications were intolerably low in general.

Goals and legality obviously play a part in this process. Is the university looking for the same proportional acceptance rate between minorities and whites? Does the university want a student body that reflects it application pool or the U.S. population? For that matter, should race or ethnicity factor into the application process at all? There are too many unanswered questions to constitute a coherent policy at this point.

Then again, once we have achieved Mr. Ingram's goal of diversity, however that comes to be defined, there is an even greater problem to combat: engagement. Racial separation on campus is nearly as prevalent as the lack of diversity itself. What good will diversity do if it results in nothing other than having various ethnicities congregating without interacting? Though it may satisfy the conscience of some, propped up by the belief that they solved the problem, it is possible that the problem was exacerbated, leaving an even more entrenched one.

I hope the committee on race relations and any other campus group dealing with this issue realizes its enormity and complexity.

First, it must define the problem and its key terms. Second, it must create goals that can be reached legally and with some rapidity. Third, it must create a campus environment that fosters the ideals of this newfound diversity. Justice Earl Warren never said the process toward complete integration would be painless when he issued the majority opinion in Brown v. Board of Education. Only now are we beginning to see how hard it really is.