The New York Times published striking discussion of race in American universities, focusing on the role and culture of Asian-Americans at Cal. It cites the record number of Asian freshman at our school — 46% — and tries to explain this “misrepresentation” of the California populace.

Though it’s five pages long, it’s an engaging read and definitely opens up a difficult discussion of racial diversity and meritocracy in the Berkeley school. Page four is especially provocative. Really, take a look for yourself.

David A. Hollinger, chairman of the history department, makes a good point in addressing diversity:

“You could argue that the campus is more diverse now,” because Asians comprise so many different cultures, says Dr. Hollinger. A little more than half of Asian freshmen at Berkeley are Chinese, the largest group, followed by Koreans, East-Indian/Pakistani, Filipino and Japanese.

Regarding a balanced, racially-diverse campus, Hollinger says it is not the university’s job to fix the problems that California’s public schools produce. The public university reflects the results of the public schools; admissions cannot completely override what has already been shaped (for better or for worse).

A racially diverse campus is important to some degree. It looks good on paper, it provides inviting racial communities for “minorities,” but it’s not the be all and end all of a post-secondary education. Should race be the defining characteristic of diversity? What of class, socio-economic background, geography, gender, religion, and culture? With such a large student population, Berkeley is as close as you can get to a “naturally” diverse campus, if you look beyond just race.