“ Dismantle whiteness and misogyny on this campus.”

How would you feel if this message was plastered on a building at a major university, antagonizing the white male scholars passing by? This exact message was displayed in the form of a mural at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg Journalism Hall earlier this month.

Multicultural and diversity counseling is among the fastest growing professions on college campuses. However, increased communication about race and culture doesn’t necessarily mean less resistance. USC is just one university following the detrimental tune spouted by hundreds of universities doubling down on multicultural counseling despite the repeated empirical evidence that diversity training proliferates animosity and tension.

A diversity counselor is a proverbial poisoned chalice — an enticing idea to make students feel at ease — yet overt emphasis of diversity training conversely creates an us versus them mentality, contributing to anger, anxiety, and resistance among employees and students. Certain universities maintain multiple counselors, meaning a payroll exceeding a million dollars annually. At best, you’re looking at an expensive disservice to campus life.

For the vast majority of universities — especially UC Berkeley — spending large sums on diversity counselors correlates highly with unrest and protests. There are many examples. White students at UC Berkeley were forced to attend class by fording a creek below the main bridge because they were white. Students rallied to cancel “free speech” week because the speaker, Milo Yiannopoulos, was provocative. Worst of all was when an entire university, Mizzou, mandated diversity training to all staff , a multimillion dollar endeavor, in response to the actions of a few. Ironically, Mizzou, Yale, and Berkeley are all universities with a laser focus on diversity as the central tenets of college cohesiveness, yet they remain the most divisive.

The malfeasance of diversity training and counselors should be an open-and-shut case. Often, it’s not a partisan issue: Democrats and Republicans alike agree it contributes to an unhealthy atmosphere . So, why is it constantly perpetuated?

In all fairness, it isn’t entirely the fault of campus administrations. Universities feel a potent squeeze to double down on diversity when college ranking bodies — such as the Niche and Forbes — place a premium on having a colorful student population. A more diverse student population equals a higher “grade” for the university, which leads to potentially larger endowments. Thus, a positive feedback loop or the college version of “Keeping Up With The Joneses” emerges.

Colleges must present their institution as the “most inclusive” or desirable to all groups – which is exactly how a university should portray themselves: inviting and comfortable. The problem stems from the way colleges go about creating an inviting and comfortable atmosphere. We should value the individual and not innate physical traits, such as skin color.

The work of diversity counselors coupled with misplaced college rankings are an unholy matrimony, financially burdening colleges and contributing to unnecessary toxic sentiment between students. Diversity obsession equally distributes the negative animosity and creates a ceiling for success depending on the color of your skin, which again, is the opposite intended effect of the program.

I understand it’s an archaic thought in a dubiously meritocratic society, but maybe we should treat — and admit — students on holistic approaches disregarding race instead of pitting them against one another.