UA administrators have spent the past year spewing semantics at the campus community in a desperate attempt to sell everyone on their ădiversityä plans, but they havenât offered one reason why anyone should care.

And there is no reason to care.

Administrators are vague about their diversity plans because ădiversityä is a code word for ăpolitically correct,ä which makes their effort completely superficial.

All this talk spun its way into UA politics after two studies last year, the Millennium Project and the Grace Report, claimed to have found discrepancies in the pay and treatment of women and minorities.

The language from officials who will be reshaping affirmative action policy on this campus suggests that they plan to use race and gender as a litmus test for hiring faculty.

That is a misguided approach. This university should recruit faculty and staff based on their qualifications and merit. Race should be ignored.

It was color-coding society that led to racial injustices in this country.

Administrators claim that making the faculty more diverse will lead to a better educational experience, since people of different racial backgrounds have different teaching techniques.

But there is little evidence to suggest that a racially diverse campus creates a more intellectual student body, and after all, this is a student-centered university.

Moreover, the university is still caught in a statewide recession and is facing financial problems.

Patti Ota, vice president for executive affairs and university initiatives, has echoed what many others have said ÷ that addressing diversity is not a money issue.

Thatâs all well and good, but wouldnât it be better for the leaders of this university to focus on more dire problems? UA is still facing a ăbrain drainä of its faculty.

This university canât even hold on to the faculty it has. Why are we talking so much about hiring people we canât even afford?

If officials really wanted to make the faculty diverse they would look beyond race and gender.

And what does diversity mean anyway? Officials have struggled to define the term, but most have admitted that it canât be defined.

Elizabeth Ervin, the UA vice provost who spent six months on a diversity sabbatical, said, ăFor a campus such as ours, diversity involves the demographics of students, staff, and faculty; the curricula and programs; issues of disability; belief systems, religion; socio-economic background.ä

But, so far, the language from UA President Peter Likins has not suggested that the universityâs efforts will stretch outside race and gender borders ÷ something that would be far too difficult and not nearly as politically correct.

Needless to say, none of this is what affirmative action was created for ÷ to remedy the effects of past discrimination.

No, these efforts are about looking politically correct and capitalizing on a growing minority population.

But for now, it seems like the campus is safe. Under the administrationâs ăwink-winksä about diversity efforts lay bureaucratic committees that have accomplished nothing after a year of meetings.

And although that seems good in the short term, Ota promises to have a plan by the end of the summer.

Hopefully it will leave hiring powers to deans and department heads and ask them to hire faculty on the basis of merit ÷ not appearance.