December 06, 2011

Looks like U.D. still hasn't fully learned its lesson

Learned its lesson from its Residence Life Thought Control Program from a few years back, that is. UD President Pat Harker is COMMITTED to diversity -- so much so that

it's no good to bring a diverse community together if people don't talk to each [sic] and challenge each other.

In other words, if you won't talk to that fellow student who's different from you, we're gonna make you!

Yeesh. I sure wish educrats would concentrate on what they're supposed to -- educating students -- and leave the ancillary crap, especially at the college level (they're adults, after all, now) alone.

UPDATE: Of course the ever-PC News Journal has to jump into the fray on this topic. Interestingly, the article notes how UD's student and faculty population "doesn't reflect society at large" (as if that's such a big concern); however, I wonder why it doesn't ask the very same question about Delaware State University -- an Historically Black College? Does its population reflect the state's demographics?

You know the answer to that: No, it doesn't. But in the world of politically correct diversity, that isn't a concern. Diversity only is of consequence when any population is majority Caucasian.

And what is up with this from the article:

Prior to Tuesday's announcement, UD had engaged in several initiatives to improve diversity. It added a question to the forms students use to evaluate their teachers asking if their academic abilities were prejudged based on their race, ethnicity or gender.

How is this ... "an initiative to improve diversity"?? How, realistically, would college administrators take into account a student "evaluation" that answered in the positive? Knowing American universities' penchant for far-left PC, I'd wager these admins would take any such student "evaluation" at face value, and confront the "offending" professor as being "racist," "sexist" "homophobic," or whatever. Why? Because the rules of left-PC dictate that it's how someone interprets words and actions that are of paramount import. The interpretation may have absolutely no basis in reality, but this doesn't matter. Who are we to judge what someone else interprets, right? Not to mention there's the way-obvious "excuse" for students to negatively assess an instructor with such an "evaluation" merely because the student performed dismally academically. "How can I get this meanie prof back? Ah, yes -- he's racially/gender/sexual identity insensitive! Bingo!"

Then:

The university also started gathering and studying data on retention and turnover among female faculty and faculty of color, as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender faculty.

"I feel like this can be a great university," [Professor of psychology and Black American Studies and first director of the new Center for the Study of Diversity James] Jones said. "And to do that, we have to deal with issues of diversity."

Ah yes, the ever-popular director of The Completely Non-Essential Center chiming in here. I wonder if James feels similarly about Del. State -- does he feel it could "be great" if it evened out its vast racial disparities?

It's. All. A. Big. Joke.


Posted by Hube at December 6, 2011 07:30 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

I see what you're saying. But as I can attest to from my own life, people can and do change as the result of "forced exposure" -- just like in the Cheney example.

Take a liberal atheist who hates the "crazy religious right." He's assigned a roommate who is a religious man who isn't so "crazy," and who he likes on a personal level. I guarantee you that guy's views evolve and soften a bit.

So I believe exposure to something you might not voluntarily do or see is at best a great tool, and at worst, completely harmless.

...Unless one thinks that these types of tolerant attitudes ARE the harm -- which, unfortunately, is the true reason why some on the right actually dislike these programs.

Posted by: dan at December 7, 2011 11:59 AM

I have an update to this later on which our ridiculously PC major state paper takes on this subject. At any rate, I've no issue with a university assigning roommates like you suggest. Universities (at least as I'm aware) may make an effort to grant requested roommates, but there's never any guarantee. I have an issue with what UD did with stuff like its preposterously invasive Residence Life program -- and what they'll probably invent to "force" diversity upon its student body. I couldn't care less about a roommate drastically different (racially, religiously, etc.) than myself; however, I don't want to be mandated to attend programs like the R.L. program ... in fact, I don't want attend anything other than the classes required by my major and sub-college.

Oh, and keep in mind that many on the left are at least as intolerant as many of those on the right. Easily.

Posted by: Hube at December 7, 2011 12:15 PM

Sure. I did use the example of the liberal atheist's attitude being the one that needed some adjustment.

Basically, we're wired differently, so it's hard for me to relate to what's truly so upsetting about this issue. If a diversity effort is ineffectual, I'd do it and move on, thinking "Eh, they mean well." Because they inarguably do mean well, unless you believe that their desired outcome is harmful in some way. That's the beginning and the end of it for me.

So I understand thinking it's a waste of time. But I don't understand much beyond that.
Especially when the outrage about being "told what to do" usually comes from folks who then devote themselves to telling me how to live my life when it comes to love, sex, marriage, and children (not pointing the finger at you).

Posted by: dan at December 7, 2011 04:55 PM

How many other "They mean well" scenarios should we have shrugged aside, dan?

And I do believe the outcome is harmful in some way: How does "meaning well" involve being forced to divulge intimate details about your social life? How does it "mean well" to make it a hate crime (virtual or actual) to merely disagree with someone of a "protected" class and/or refuse to participate in "diversity" and "multiculti" seminars or "training?"

If all this crap was purely voluntary and non-invasive, then I would shrug my shoulders and move on. But it's not. Diversity is akin to a religion to higher ed academics (and to a lesser extent lower ed academics), not at all unlike that of far-right religious types that you abhor.

Posted by: Hube at December 7, 2011 05:10 PM

No argument on that U. Del program specifically. That is some wacky stuff. I had followed one of your links initially, but it was mostly reaction to it, not a description. After looking up the excerpts from the RA training just now, I certainly agree that it's hard to figure what they were thinking.

I didn't see any reference to the "hate crime" thing, though.

Posted by: dan at December 7, 2011 06:03 PM

I'm speaking in general terms when it comes to the "hate crimes" aspect -- accusations of bigotry, insensitivity, intolerance, bias, all the "-ism's" ... and the academic left goes by the mantra guilty-until-proven-innocent in this realm. That is, until it gets out in the open, then they usually retreat or lose in a real court.

BTW, nice to see you commenting again. Sorry for not saying that earlier. :-)

Posted by: Hube at December 7, 2011 07:06 PM

Diversity initiatives put everybody into tiny checked boxes. And then once in those boxes, nobody can offer critical perspectives on anything without being dismissed based on the tiny little box you check. Thus, what should be reasoned intellectual dialogue on our campuses is reduced to ad hominem attacks, and whole swaths of non-PC perspectives are silenced. We are all stripped of our individuality and individual experiences. If you are white, you are privileged, regardless of your personal story. If you are black, you are a victim, regardless of your personal story. And if you are Asian, you are not wanted at all.

Posted by: Jack at December 8, 2011 04:00 PM