ItâÄôs hard not to notice the recent stepped-up campaign promoting racial diversity around the University of Minnesota.

Every time I pick up the Minnesota Daily, it seems IâÄôm faced with another column or editorial dedicated to the topic. May I first begin by saying that, as a Caucasian male, I am very familiar with being the minority.

In my department, I am one of few students from the Twin Cities suburbs. I am one of the oldest students in any of my classes. My political values place me square at the bottom of the class when compared with others around me. I know and understand what it means to be a minority. My question to the Daily is this:

Why, when discussing diversity, is the conversation inherently tethered to race?

Could it be that there are other prisms through which one can justifiably address diversity? Could it be that in an effort to promote diversity, the University could consider factors other than race?

After the 2008 election, the American public was told that we have entered a “post-racial” era. How could it be then that this racial dichotomy is continually perpetuated under the clever guise of “diversity?”

If we truly wish to become a post-racial people, we must begin by erasing this racial boundary by which we are seemingly bound. Perhaps then we may discover that we are all in effect, minorities. After all, weâÄôre individuals, and we should be proud of that.