At first glance, the assumption seems guided by altruistic motives, but upon further reflection, the campaign seems more motivated by profit and greed than by sound motives. Secondly, the campaign does not make sense within the context of the American political system.
Third of all, I do not believe the university should be teaching morals to its students.
Other motives: trustees in charge of serious university financial decisions do not have altruistic motives and are motivated by profit. If making the campus more open creates more incentives for minorities and international students to choose the U of I over another school, then the University earns more money, especially for out of state students.
American Political Context: Theories: Liberal Pluralism or Republicanism or majoritarian or Elitist?
In other words should our political system be interest group based with advocates telling us when to mobilize (liberal pluralism), republican in that we deliberate collectively and the best argument prevails, majoritarian in that the majority (most votes) wins out, or elitist, in that citizens are assumed to be too unintelligent to know their interests, loyalty to parties is instilled, and we are ruled by experts.
It would seem our university system just as the American political system is a mix of these political theories. We have interests groups who exert pressure on the administration to change policy with respect to race relations, for example, but no student seems knowledgeable enough to have the psychology, political, and math background to understand what motivates people to stereotype, discriminate, or make racist comments in the classroom or as fans on the sports field.
It seems we are ruled by elites (trustees and the administration), but interest groups do exert pressure on them when motivated by advocates (professors and leaders) to do so. There does not seem to be much of a deliberative republican element because republicanism assumes that students discover their common interests through deliberative, inclusive, objective, and informed debate. While the university does host debates for such issues, few students attend them, meaning either they don't ascribe to main assumption behind the university's campaign or they are indifferent. Both possibilities point to an uneducated campus electorate or just interest groups acting on ideological cues. Finally, there really are not majoritarian elements in anything besides club cabinets or the university's student senate. While the senate's deliberation procedure is grounded on the majoritarian theory, its decisions serve to merely rubber stamp public opinion, nothing more.
So, me, as a University of Illinois student, goes to class and functions in an elitist and liberal pluralist system.
Morals: Given the type of university political system we are in, I disagree with the administration's take on race and minority issues. We should certainly be asked to respect other people for who they are, but not necessarily accept them for who they are. Put another way, we shouldn't be required to accept anybody's way of life or behavior, unless we all together actively engage in discourse to determine what is best for the common good or why such behaviors might be detrimental to the university's atmosphere. I believe our university's senate should be expanded to include all students, graduate and undergraduate so we can, as a body politic, experience politics and understand it.
Lessons: Don't force feed cheap morals to students who misunderstand them, were not educated by their parents to respect others, or have not been taught to understand that any movement forward involves what is logically best for the common interest of all. Secondly, instill civic virtues in people, so they can learn to cooperate together to achieve goals, and, at the same, learn from the consequences of failed policy choices.
Make a commitment to change.