next »

[beacon1]

I have read a lot about diversity and I am sickened by the lack of real thought or consideration that is put into this nebulous topic...

At its very core it is an anti-white male movement with the intent to punish white males for inequities that have occurred in our culture. The re-framers of this argument will want to say it is about giving minorities and women (anyone that is not a white male) a chance to move ahead in what is an obviously biased culture... I can agree on some level... we do live in a biased culture which does have bias in favor of white males... However, this has to be examined on a CASE BY CASE basis... diversity advocates rationalize an argument that discriminates in favor of one group over another... isn't that bigotry in window dressing?

Higher Education is a bastion of this form of bigotry... In a recent interview I had for a university position, several questions were asked about diversity and its importance in the classroom... I couldn't help but notice the whole selection committee was made up of females ( a diverse group of females no less!). How does that come close to being diverse... Not one member out of six was male? The odds of randomly selecting that group would have been 1 in 200 or so... For me it proves that we are in fact in an anti white male movement....

Let me ask one question for all those pushing diversity... do you think that your university will oneday select its sports teams by using the same criteria? I doubt it....

Where is the empirical evidence about what diversity actually improves? Is it just an undigested concept that is thrown out there to tug at heart strings and dig out repressed anger in those that have been victimized?

A riddle: My father once owned a dairy farm... one day, due to his feeling that it was unfair that only black and white cows were allowed to give milk decided to buy some brown cows and some red cows.... My father lost the farm:( Guess there is no sense crying over lost milk...

[prof_mom]

... For me it proves that we are in fact in an anti white male movement....

Let me ask one question for all those pushing diversity... do you think that your university will oneday select its sports teams by using the same criteria? I doubt it....
...

Yes, white males are really having trouble now. Women now make over $.70 for every dollar a man makes. Remember the good days, when it was about $.50 or less? Remember when women would be fired when they got married and found someone to take care of them?

We should consider athletic ability by the same criteria. This is a great idea. Who was it that said that African Americans were advantaged in sports because they were selectively mated during slave times? Some sports announcer or coach said this I think. We should definitely give white people a chance to compete. They did not have the "advantage" of having ancestors in slavery. No, I can't even write that. I am too disgusted to even make fun of this.


Can you see the whole village from under that bridge, or only when you post something?

[beacon1]

Yes, white males are really having trouble now. Women now make over $.70 for every dollar a man makes. Remember the good days, when it was about $.50 or less?

You are making sweeping generalizations.... yes it is true... some men make .30 cents more to every dollar than women... but it is not all... that is why I said things should be looked at case by case.

Remember when women would be fired when they got married and found someone to take care of them?

what do the good ole days have to do with my job application... I wasnt part of that... so I should pay for it... It is apparent that you want revenge for this unfairness... but I didnt do it... for you, WHITE MEN did it... For Nazis, JEWS did it... thats what I said about repressed anger ... your not even sure who to be mad at...

We should consider athletic ability by the same criteria. This is a great idea. Who was it that said that African Americans were advantaged in sports because they were selectively mated during slave times? Some sports announcer or coach said this I think. We should definitely give white people a chance to compete. They did not have the "advantage" of having ancestors in slavery. No, I can't even write that. I am too disgusted to even make fun of this.

You miss the point.... we dont select atheletic ability with an idea for diversity because winning is ALL that matters.... We want the best team... Why not just go for the BEST employee... I have a suggestion... NO IDENTIFYING INFORMATION on the application! Hire based on achievement alone...

Can you see the whole village from under that bridge, or only when you post something?

What are you so angry about? Is the village full of evil white men?

[prytania3]

Hi Mr. Anti AA. How have you been?

Yours always,

Chica

[beacon1]

I'm not that guy... not even against affirmative action...

What I believe is the worst injustice in this country is economic disparity... between the have and have nots

I would want the mission statement of Us to say "encourage those raised without economic means a bonus chance to get ahead"

diversity makes the assumption that non-white means economically deprived and therefore without opportunities... while this may hold up most of the times... sometimes it doesn't...

What about white folks from poor rural Louisiana... or wealthy rich black folks from Connecticut... shouldn't the poor white guy have some bonus points going into race if we are concerned about fairness....

It is discouraging to hear... we need a black female for that position... I'm sure if you have been on search committees this has been the case at times....

If you really want to look at inequality, look on a case by case basis of how hard it was for the candidate to get where they are.... otherwise just hire the one that has achieved the most...

[goldenapple]

I have to admit that the OP's grammar and punctuation make me suspicious. Did you get that feeling, too, prytania3?  I'll tell you, beacon1, that it does suggest that you aren't an academic. Who uses elipses to replace commas, dashes, or even quotation marks? And that last sentence is a real grammar train-wreck.

Perhaps, however, you would like us to overlook the quality of your presentation in view of your ethnic background.

[au_fait]

I'm not that guy... not even against affirmative action...

What I believe is the worst injustice in this country is economic disparity... between the have and have nots

I would want the mission statement of Us to say "encourage those raised without economic means a bonus chance to get ahead"

diversity makes the assumption that non-white means economically deprived and therefore without opportunities... while this may hold up most of the times... sometimes it doesn't...

What about white folks from poor rural Louisiana... or wealthy rich black folks from Connecticut... shouldn't the poor white guy have some bonus points going into race if we are concerned about fairness....

It is discouraging to hear... we need a black female for that position... I'm sure if you have been on search committees this has been the case at times....

If you really want to look at inequality, look on a case by case basis of how hard it was for the candidate to get where they are.... otherwise just hire the one that has achieved the most...

Is that what is at the core of your post, that you feel a candidate was hired over you because he/she was whatever race/ethnicity the SC was looking for?
The complexities of "fit" go beyond publications, conference presentations, and teaching evaluations or whomever as "achieved the most."
While a SC may need to diversify it's department, and thereby, focuses the search on candidates who fit that criterion, the need to diversify is present because we often higher people who look/think/act/vote/believe as we do, creating a system that is prejudiced against anyone who is unlike us. Therefore, if a SC notices the entire department is made of "Mr. Smiths" (e.g. the Matrix trilogy, especially the third movie), it behoves them to look for someone unlike them, but who will still get along with them.

Thinking that race/gender/class alone lost you the job is very short-sighted and will not help you reflect and revise your approach to job interviews.

[prytania3]

What? You're not affiliated with the organization? Well, you should be. I suggest you sign up now.

[joey_fan]

diversity makes the assumption that non-white means economically deprived and therefore without opportunities... while this may hold up most of the times... sometimes it doesn't...

What about white folks from poor rural Louisiana... or wealthy rich black folks from Connecticut... shouldn't the poor white guy have some bonus points going into race if we are concerned about fairness....

While I believe people are well intentioned when they suggest we look at socioeconomic factors as well as race/ethnicity when we talk about diversity, I do not buy this line of thinking that pits 'poor whites' against 'rich non-whites.' The issue is not just equal opportunity and 'giving the underdog a chance to get ahead' purely on an economic level but achieving diversity of life experiences, perspectives, and skills within and across the institutation. For instance, a Latina candidate who comes from an affluent neighborhood still has valuable cultural experience and knowledge (e.g., perhaps she is bilingual and/or bicultural) that is important or worthwhile even though she may be economically well-off. Yes, maybe she is upper middle class or went to a private school or whatever, but she still has something in her background and life experience that sets her apart from monolingual Anglo counterparts and can provide a different perspetive, etc.

[jackie_d]

I cannot believe you were interviewed by a committee made up only of females. That's sick and it makes me want to puke.

What's next? A women or black man for president of the U.S. of A.?

I am so glad there are people as you defending our country from the bigotry of anti-sexism and anti-racism.

[beacon1]

I have to admit that the OP's grammar and punctuation make me suspicious. Did you get that feeling, too, prytania3?  I'll tell you, beacon1, that it does suggest that you aren't an academic. Who uses elipses to replace commas, dashes, or even quotation marks? And that last sentence is a real grammar train-wreck.

Zing! That hurts! Yes, I admit, it is poor grammer.

But why make personal attacks. Why not just debate the issues?

Oh... elipse is spelled "ellipse".

[au_fait]

diversity makes the assumption that non-white means economically deprived and therefore without opportunities... while this may hold up most of the times... sometimes it doesn't...

What about white folks from poor rural Louisiana... or wealthy rich black folks from Connecticut... shouldn't the poor white guy have some bonus points going into race if we are concerned about fairness....

While I believe people are well intentioned when they suggest we look at socioeconomic factors as well as race/ethnicity when we talk about diversity, I do not buy this line of thinking that pits 'poor whites' against 'rich non-whites.' The issue is not just equal opportunity and 'giving the underdog a chance to get ahead' purely on an economic level but achieving diversity of life experiences, perspectives, and skills within and across the institutation. For instance, a Latina candidate who comes from an affluent neighborhood still has valuable cultural experience and knowledge (e.g., perhaps she is bilingual and/or bicultural) that is important or worthwhile even though she may be economically well-off. Yes, maybe she is upper middle class or went to a private school or whatever, but she still has something in her background and life experience that sets her apart from monolingual Anglo counterparts and can provide a different perspetive, etc.

Of course there is danger in assuming that if someone is not white, hu is bilingual. There's also danger in assuming that Anglo's aren't bilingual (perhaps from formal education, perhaps not) and bicultural.
It's simply more fun when everyone brings something different to the potluck. I'm tired of meat and potatoes!

[beacon1]

Is that what is at the core of your post, that you feel a candidate was hired over you because he/she was whatever race/ethnicity the SC was looking for?

Yes, I was told this from a member of the search committee.

need to diversify is present because we often higher people who look/think/act/vote/believe as we do, creating a system that is prejudiced against anyone who is unlike us. Therefore, if a SC notices the entire department is made of "Mr. Smiths" (e.g. the Matrix trilogy, especially the third movie), it behoves them to look for someone unlike them, but who will still get along with them.

then choose someone that doesn't believe in diversity...lol

[beacon1]

I do not buy this line of thinking that pits 'poor whites' against 'rich non-whites.' The issue is not just equal opportunity and 'giving the underdog a chance to get ahead' purely on an economic level but achieving diversity of life experiences, perspectives, and skills within and across the institutation. For instance, a Latina candidate who comes from an affluent neighborhood still has valuable cultural experience and knowledge (e.g., perhaps she is bilingual and/or bicultural) that is important or worthwhile even though she may be economically well-off. Yes, maybe she is upper middle class or went to a private school or whatever, but she still has something in her background and life experience that sets her apart from monolingual Anglo counterparts and can provide a different perspetive, etc.

You make the assumption that whites are a homogeneous group. My life experiences are certainly different than other whites. Are my life and cultural experiences undervalued versus a Latina females.

valuable cultural experience and knowledge (e.g., perhaps she is bilingual and/or bicultural) that is important or worthwhile

How is it worthwhile? Can you quantify this? If she is teaching Latin American history or Spanish perhaps. What if she teaches statistics?

[revel_master]

So, let me get this straight: is OP trying to suggest that if we excluded consideration of diversity from hiring decisions, that would make the playing field equal for all applicants?  All we then have to do is compare qualifications objectively, right?  That's the argument one often hears.

And it misses a very important consideration: do you think those "qualifications" are themselves independent of the variables of race, class and gender?  Here's an example: wouldn't someone who attended Yale and Harvard have good qualifications for a job with lots of responsibility? Well, guess what: President Bush attended Yale and Harvard, and if he weren't the whitest of the white, the richest of the rich, and the malest of the male, he wouldn't have had a prayer at earning those "qualifications."  So let's not pretend that educational pedigree is a completely unbiased barometer of anyone's ability to perform a job.  And in my mind, those who protest when questions of diversity influence the hiring process, it's not that they really want to banish demographic biases from the process.  It's just that they're perfectly comfortable with the old biases (whether they recognize them for what they are or not), and not so happy about the new ones.

But for my money (and guess what, I'm a white male!) the new biases are a step beyond the old ones and make for better educational environments for all.  And thinking we can rid the system of *all* biases is hopelessly naive.