In case you had not yet realized all the wonderful advantages of making the UA more "diverse," here's a new one: It will cut down on binge drinking.
Yup, just when you thought you'd heard it all, white males are to blame for yet another so-called social epidemic.
That's according to a study by the College of Alcohol Studies at the Harvard School of Public Health.
Henry Wechsler, the chief principal investigator of the study, said the research does not suggest that universities should change policies on admissions, but does recommend that colleges look at the benefits of a more diverse campus.
Sounds a bit suspicious to me.
One wonders if studies like this, released as the country debates affirmative action policies and college campuses remain obsessed with molding racially aware atmospheres, are politically motivated.
Binge drinking, a dangerous epidemic, will need real solutions, not more affirmative action rhetoric.
The journalism and academic worlds are so engrossed in the buzzword "diversity," they'll do almost anything to convince others to jump onboard with their plans.
And, given the enormous amount of time, energy and money the UA is throwing to diversity policies, administrators will no doubt utilize the study to validate more unfair hiring and admissions practices.
In fact, they already are.
Jim Van Arsdel, director of Residence Life, no doubt echoed the words of other administrators on campus when he implied that decreasing the number of white young males would decrease the number of students who fit the statistical criteria of a binge drinker.
Of course, in fairness, Van Arsdel admitted the situation is not that simple.
"There are typical things young white males do, but that goes deeper than just using alcohol," he said.
But how completely ridiculous, as well as racially divisive, to suggest that affirmative action policies will make the UA more dry.
Imagine if someone on this campus suggested that controlling the number of minority students would suppress crime.
Campus would be up in arms over such a comment, calling it racist, as it would be.
But the diversity push is not the only agenda here.
The university is also on a big anti-alcohol kick.
We move beyond the role of educational institution as we set community morals and standards.
Last year, I attended a large student leadership conference in the Student Union Memorial Center.
The weekend-long event was kicked off in the ballroom with a formal dinner.
The night before the dinner, I was asked to attend a short meeting in the student union.
There, a student involvement coordinator informed us that alcohol would be served at the event, but students were not to drink at the dinner.
We might send the wrong message and give a false impression that college students drink.
So, despite the fact that I was 22 years old, I stayed sober while UA attorneys and middle level administrators drank it up.
Hypocritical, isn't it? Administrators can drink. UA donors can drink. But students should stay sober.
The UA has done such an excellent job glamorizing alcohol, who wouldn't want to booze it up?
This relatively unimportant incident, however, speaks to the anti-alcohol attitude adopted by authority figures on this campus.
The propaganda has made its way into greek life and residence life, and now it seeks to justify diversity efforts.
In fact, all this diversity talk is rather trendy.
When affirmative action took hold back in the 1970s under former President Richard Nixon - who history will remember as a crook, but was really a moderate who fought for equal rights - its purpose was to break down barriers for groups subject to discrimination.
But now that's all changed.
These days, it's not about equality or creating a color-blind society.
The drive is the complete opposite: Make race a major component of our lives and our identities.
But our differences as human beings, students and faculty are more complex than just the color of our skin.
If the UA were really interested in forming diversity, it would look outside the realms of race.
But a plan of that sort would be far more complicated and the federal payoff not nearly as lucrative.
Meanwhile, the fight to suppress binge drinking won't be solved by renaming buildings after union leaders.
The UA should ignore this study, focus on strenthening the educational legs of the university and stop setting community standards.
Daniel Scarpinato is a journalism and political science senior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu