My name is Gerard Harbison. For the last 17 years I have been a Chemistry professor at the university, but I'm testifying here as a citizen of Nebraska.

I'd like to echo my colleague's Marc Schniederjans's remarks about diversity, and to tell you a short story. About 4 years ago, I received a letter from the Chemistry Department at the University of Puerto Rico in Mayaguez. The letter was boosting their program, and urging us to hire Chemistry majors from Mayaguez as graduate students. It boasted, proudly, that UPR has the most diverse student population in the United States since it is 98% hispanic.

It's a funny story, but it's also a sad example of how the word 'diversity' has been co-opted by the proponents of preferences. The word once meant 'variety' -- and it's not unreasonable for a institution of higher education to want to recruit students from a variety of backgrounds. But because it's been taken over by preference mongers, it's often just a code word for members of certain minority groups, and that's how my colleagues at the University of Puerto Rico misused the word.

So when it's used in Nebraska Statute 85, which this bill intends to amend, how should we read it? Well, we can look at the legislative history. When this program was started in the year 1989, it was called, explicitly, the Minority Scholarship Program act, and it created a scholarship, explicitly for under-represented Black, American Indian and Hispanic students. It's been modified and added to several times, over the years, but there is no evidence its purpose has changed. The current language of the statute has been made consonant with supreme court decisions, but there is little doubt that when it says 'diversity', it means, 'diversity' as in 'Black, American Indian and Hispanic students', just the same way my colleagues in UPR mean diversity. Deleting explicit mention of the groups favored under this program will not change that. I suppose the bill's proponents could argue that what is meant in the statute by 'diversity' in 2009 isn't what was meant in the statute by diversity in 2007, when it was last revised, but I doubt many of the citizens of Nebraska, who voted 58-42 just 5 months ago to reject and forbid programs of this sort, will be convinced.  It seems more probable that in fact it diversity in 2009 means exactly what it meant in 2007 and in 2001, and that removing explicit references to race and ethnicity from the statute are not a real or fundamental change in the purpose or thrust of the program, but rather an attempt to conceal its obvious unconstitutionality. 

But that can be fixed. If the legislature wants to retain this program, amend the statute to clarify the meaning of the word diversity. Spell out in exact language what sorts of students can benefit from the program. Clearly, race and ethnicity can no longer be criteria, but if the university really does want to encourage students with diverse backgrounds to come here, spell out what sort of diversity in background will qualify. Fluency in a foreign language might be a plus. Having lived some time in another country might be a plus. Having an unusual point of view about important issues might be a plus. Having come from a working class background where none of one's antecedents went to college might be a plus. That way, nobody will be in any doubt what sorts of factors will qualify one for this program, and there will be no temptation or opportunity for institutions of higher education  to use it this program as a back door way to do what is constitutionally forbidden. Students will be helped, because when they find the program and face a decision whether to apply for it, they can figure that out in plain and simple terms. And the citizens of Nebraska will be helped, by having plain and simple language in our laws, rather than nebulous code-words.

Thank you for your attention.