Affirmative Action Revisited

Why is it that Grutter and other cases allowing affirmative action point to diversity as a compelling government interest in having affirmative action? By stating this, the Supreme Court is essentializing racial minorities as though if when a racial minority is admitted into a college, she will and must bring her racial culture into the classroom in order to fulfill this compelling government interest.

Though it's true that because someone is, say a Black male, he probably experiences the same imposition of existing stereotypes by those around him as other Black males. Yet it's odd how the courts mix up racial experience with cultural identity and almost implicitly force racial minorities into a particular pigeonhole as symbols of their racial minorities' culture in the classroom to better the classroom experience for future white male corporate america leaders! *GRR!!!* *WTF!* Is this where the interest convergence of affirmative action coincides for racial minorities and white males?

It's sad b/c then later on, in the work force, racial minorities are told not to show their cultural and racial identity but to change these mutable characteristics of theirs to conform to mainstream culture, be "color-blind." They lack Title VII protection so they can legally be fired, not promoted, or even not hired due to their race! The same government that endorses affirmative action for racial minorities because of racial (or cultural) diversity ALSO allows employers to arbitrarily stifle racial diversity in the workplace. *Grr!*

I see affirmative action's justification as a remedy to the present societal subordination of racial minorities. Affirmative action opens doors to racial minorities that would most likely have been open to them had it not been for the present discrimination against them (created in part by the many historical discriminatory acts by both the government and private actors and perpetuated by existing stereotypes/lack of economic opportunity).