It is no accident, as we conspiracy theorists say, that campuses that are the steamiest hothouses of “diversity” — often the most elite, selective institutions — frequently experience the most dissatisfaction with their racial “climate.” When race is like a constantly picked scab, the sore never heals.

Hannah Rosenthal is an articulate, prolific, “diversity”-obsessed Princeton sophomore. As a 17 year old high school junior in St. Louis she was

one of this year’s 26 recipients nationwide of the Princeton Prize in Race Relations, which recognizes and encourages young people who have made or are making efforts to improve racial harmony….

Hannah flew to New Jersey … to be part of the 3rd Annual Princeton Prize Symposium on Race, where she attended campus workshops on topics associated with race.

She says she tackles race relations from a variety of angles. “I restarted my high school’s diversity club last year. Our goal is to promote tolerance through understanding and provide students with a comfortable venue to discuss topics that seem touchy in today’s society, such as religion, race, sexual orientation and power and privilege,” she explained. She also writes about race for the school newspaper and has led a panel discussion to broaden perspectives on the issue and generate an exchange of opinions.

“It was great to be in a community of students fighting for the same things I care about,” said Hannah, reflecting on her weekend at Princeton where she received $1,000 in prize money. She plans to put some of it toward college and donate some to organizations that have made an impact on her life, including the diversity club.

Now that she is a Princeton student, however, she has (I’m tempted to say “predictably”) found the depth and degree of “diversity” there highly disappointing.

In a Daily Princetonian column today she explains why “Princeton today is not immune to problems of social and academic exclusivity and inequity” and argues that “Princeton needs a culture change and increased institutional involvement if it is to fully overcome its history of racism, prejudice and exclusion.”

Commendably unwilling to limit herself to mere platitudes, however, Ms. Rosenthal offers a detailed list of particulars: “15 examples of real incidents that have occurred on the Princeton campus, incidents I have learned of through facilitating dialogues, attending workshops and engaging in daily one-on-one conversations about race and ethnicity with my peers, my professors and Princeton alumni.” But as a privileged white person, Ms. Rosenthal notes, “I face none of these challenges.”

Here is her 15 count indictment of Princeton, with each item followed by my comments usually suggesting that “diversity” is more the problem than the solution:

1)     I do not have to walk to the end of Prospect Avenue to visit the only building specifically devoted to  support my cultural interests: the Carl A. Fields Center for Equality and Cultural Understanding. Meanwhile, the LGBT Center and the Women’s Center are centrally located in Frist Campus Center.

Do/should all groups have buildings — or even more than one building — devoted specifically to their cultural interests? Is it discriminatory when any group has to walk farther to get to its building, which, if it serves a late-arriving group, may not surprisingly be farther from the center of the campus?

2)     I can observe that the majority of my professors and preceptors belong to my racial group.

More “inclusion” will not fix this. The only solution to this problem, if it is a problem, would be for the minority racial group(s) to become the majority.

3)     I can identify the majority of administrators in top University leadership positions as people of my race.

See No. 2.

4)     I am never attacked with the question “What ARE you?” by a peer who is trying to identify my race or ethnicity because it is “obvious” to my peers that I am white.

Yes, but I wonder if it’s obvious that she’s Jewish and whether anyone ever asks about that. Of course, it’s “diversity” itself, with its incessant emphasis on group identity, that pushes the “What ARE you?” question to the fore. If all were treated alike, it wouldn’t matter what you “ARE.”

5)     I am never expected to be a representative of my race in precept or in discussions with friends.

Again, it is “diversity,” whose rationale and justification is that students who are “different” must be admitted so that those who are not different can benefit from being exposed to them, that predictably brands minority students as representatives of their “racial group.”

6)     I am never assumed to be able to dance or rap or play the violin.

Play the violin? Perhaps you are not asked these or similar questions because the “racial group” to which everyone knows you belong really isn’t a “group” with any particular “cultural interests” at all. That’s why you and those who look like you don’t receive race-based special treatment; you get but don’t give whatever benefits “diversity” has to offer.

7)     I am never asked if I have “tiger parents.”

That’s because you don’t look Asian. When what you look like, skin-wise, is of pre-eminent importance, it will of course determine what questions you get asked. But then if you’re white, there aren’t many interesting questions.

8)     I am never assumed to be on financial aid.

This assumption, or lack of it, will only increase as more institutions turn to financial need as as a supposed proxy for race.

9)     I can hang out with a group of my white peers in Frist without anyone claiming that we are self-segregating.

That’s because no one, including you, think of your “peers” as selected because of or identified by their race. Now if your “racial group” had a separate building devoted to its unique “cultural interests,” that would be different.

10)  I see a lot of people of my racial group throughout the eating clubs anytime I visit the Street.

See No. 2 above.

11)  I am never accused of “acting white” because my actions or thoughts do not fit the stereotypical behaviors associated with my racial affinity group.

That’s obviously because your “racial affinity group” — I assume you mean white, not Jewish — does not have any stereotypical behaviors associated with it. “Diversity,” however, collapses if blacks and Hispanics don’t have some “stereotypical behaviors” or distinctive “cultural interests” associated with them. If they weren’t thought to be different, they couldn’t provide “diversity” based on their difference.

12)  I have never seen racial slurs targeting people of my racial group in bathroom stalls or on white boards.

It’s unfortunate but not surprising, and even predictable, that groups receiving preferential treatment incur resentment.

13)  I can find a diverse array of products to use on my hair at the C-Store and the U-Store and do not have to travel outside of the municipality of Princeton to get my hair cut or styled.

Well, that is a problem. It is unfortunate but true that minorities have less buying power than majorities, and that fact will be reflected by items available for sale. Perhaps Princeton should provide a hair-care subsidy to admitted minorities, although the problem is not really racial. I once spent a year as a Visiting Fellow at Princeton, and I recall a number of Southern staples I had a hard time finding locally.

14)  I do not have to worry about being stopped by Public Safety or the Princeton Police when I walk back to my dorm at night with a peer who looks like me.

Racial profiling is indeed bad. But complaints about racial profiling by public safety officials ring hollow ring hollow in the face of calls for more racial profiling by admissions offices and departmental hiring committees.

15)  I never feel that my intelligence is being questioned by peers who have attributed my acceptance to Princeton to affirmative action.

That’s because there are no suggestions that admissions standards were lowered for your “racial affinity group” in order to admit more of you than would have been the case without the lowered standards.

In the past Jews at Princeton — what few there were — faced all of the same problems that the white-privileged Ms. Rosenthal now does not. The fact that Ms. Rosenthal can now enjoy all the privileges of being white that she lists, and suffers none of the burdens that as a Jew she would have in earlier times, is not because Princeton made a concerted effort to “change its culture,” admit more Jews, emphasize their culturally distinct difference, etc. It’s because Princeton ended  discrimination based on religion and started treating Jews like everyone else  (although it may still take some care not to admit too many).

I think there’s a lesson there somewhere, but it’s not one Ms. Rosenthal is likely to learn at today’s Princeton, or elsewhere in the Ivy League or similar institutions.