Diversity means teaching students not to think

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Diversity means teaching students not to think
Mike S. Adams
March 23, 2005


If you want to see how the diversity movement is eroding the critical thinking skills of college students, just pick up a copy of your local college newspaper. Recently, I picked up a copy of the UNCW Seahawk. I’m still recovering.

In the Seahawk “To the Editor” section, I read a letter entitled “Get over it – diversity is good for you.” The testy (not to mention condescending) author of the letter was responding to another letter writer who opposed lower admission standards as a means of increasing black enrollment.

The response said, in part, “You assume we would have to lower UNCW's standards of academic excellence to allow a higher entry of minority students - insinuating that there aren't a large amount of minority students that meet the standard set at UNCW.” Re-read that statement and think about it for a moment. A student defending our diversity program, which already uses lower admissions standards for minorities, is saying; 1) we don’t have to lower academic standards to allow more minority students, and 2) there are already large numbers of minority students that meet university standards.

But you really should read the entire article, found here: Mike S. Adams: Diversity means teaching students not to think (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/ma20050323.shtml)

[UnkHiram]

What I absolutely love about liberals is that they assume that minorities are not smart enough to get ahead on their own while calling us conservatives racists.

[Tumblehome]

Affirmative Action makes me sick. It hurts everybody involved.

1. It hurts the majority members qualified for the position. They are discriminated against because of they happen to be white/male/whatever. And this discrimination is endorsed by the state!

2. It hurts the minority members qualified for the position. These people are forever going to be questioned as tokens. Were they good enough to get here on their own? Or were they simply admitted as a token black/woman/whatever? This legitimizes racist/sexist attitudes.

3. It hurts the minority members who are not qualified for the position. These people are in over their heads and are doomed to failure, through no real fault of their own.

4. It hurts majority-minority relations in general, as the majority now has been armed with a reason to dislike minorities, and minorities are labelled as weak and in need of help.

The true solution to all of this imbalance in power and wealth between majority and minority members is to address the realities, and not blame everything on discrimination against minorities alone. Discrimination based on minority status should not be tolerated (but nor should discrimination based on majority status) but that isn't the whole problem.

If you want to help black people because they are poor, help the poor. If you want to help women because they can't get jobs because the jobs are all long term and women want to take time out to raise families, encourage the creation of jobs for part time people. Pretty much any of these so called racist/sexist problems, short of outright discrimination, can be addressed without resulting to more racism/sexism.

Thoughts?

[DoctorDoom]

"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today."
-- Martin Luther King, Lincoln Memorial, Washington D.C., August 28, 1963

I have a dream that one day the a'holes responsible for condescending crap such as "affirmative action" will engage in mass suicide, and skin color WILL become a non-issue. I have a dream that there will no longer be "African-Americans", "Hispanic Americans", and all the other Hyphen Americans, but only Americans. I also have a dream that one day I'll watch a flock of migrating pterodactyls.

[TechnoPrincess]

In my opinion, some of MLK's own followers are responsible for the fact that his dream is far from coming true - only they've reversed the discrimination in many cases.

[DesertFox]

And your opinion is spot on, milady.

[g21lto]

Affirmative Action makes me sick. It hurts everybody involved.

1. It hurts the majority members qualified for the position. They are discriminated against because of they happen to be white/male/whatever. And this discrimination is endorsed by the state!

2. It hurts the minority members qualified for the position. These people are forever going to be questioned as tokens. Were they good enough to get here on their own? Or were they simply admitted as a token black/woman/whatever? This legitimizes racist/sexist attitudes.

3. It hurts the minority members who are not qualified for the position. These people are in over their heads and are doomed to failure, through no real fault of their own.

4. It hurts majority-minority relations in general, as the majority now has been armed with a reason to dislike minorities, and minorities are labelled as weak and in need of help.
I don't think your perception of what affirmative action policies entail nowadays is accurate. Then again, I only know about the hiring policies in academia.

Anytime there is a job candidate who is more highly qualified than another candidate, the more highly qualified candidate gets the job. If there is a "tie" in qualifications between two candidates, and one candidate is a racial minority or female, the minority or female will usually get the job. Underqualified candidates are not hired, irrespective of race.

The policy is still questionable, but not as bad as the popular perception of it.

[Melz]

I don't think your perception of what affirmative action policies entail nowadays is accurate. Then again, I only know about the hiring policies in academia.

Anytime there is a job candidate who is more highly qualified than another candidate, the more highly qualified candidate gets the job. If there is a "tie" in qualifications between two candidates, and one candidate is a racial minority or female, the minority or female will usually get the job. Underqualified candidates are not hired, irrespective of race.

The policy is still questionable, but not as bad as the popular perception of it.

The popular perception of it though is mainly based off of personal experiences where it is still going on. People are not assuming it is the same situation as 20 years ago, but based on the ACLU's defense of every case of race based hiring and college enrollment, based on personal experiences of folks we ALL know, based on statistical data on quotas still, yes it still exists, still affects the average working citizen, and still affects those who can and cannot get scholarships or even acceptance to college.

Questionable is an understatement and it IS as bad as popular knowledge (perspective as you call it) lends it to be.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

So, according to the Seahawk staff, students who believe that rape and pedophilia are good must be allowed to join, vote, and hold office in a Christian fraternity. Remember: There are “no exceptions in discrimination!” Translation: In our effort to promote tolerance, we will not tolerate any exceptions to our rules. And our rules indicate that, when it comes to beliefs, there can be no fixed rules.

The Seahawk also says that “Acceptance is supposed to represent the central ideal of Christianity.” In other words, the greatest of all commandments (forget what Jesus said) is the commandment to adhere to moral relativism.

Of course, some Christians don’t accept that idea. But their lack of acceptance is simply unacceptable. Unless you share the belief that all beliefs are acceptable, you cannot be a recognized student club. Moral relativism is acceptable. Moral absolutism is not. This is an absolute rule.

The Seahawk also scoffs at the idea that the Christian Fraternity “claims its right to the first amendment protects the organization’s stance on gay marriage and abstinence, among other sensitive issues.” The Seahawk, which urges tolerance of beliefs, just can’t tolerate these particular stances. I guess it all depends on what the definition of “stance” is. If a stance is a stance and not a belief, maybe it doesn’t have to be accepted. I don’t know where I stand on this one. My head is still spinning. . . .

The Seahawk concludes its editorial with two interesting assertions. First, they say that “Extremists are able to push their beliefs at an increasing number of venues previously closed to religious fanaticism.” They provide no example because their only purpose is to classify the Christian fraternity members as religious fanatics. Second, they say that “There is a time and place for personal beliefs *- just not in legislation and university policy.”

These students almost seem sincere in their belief that diversity proponents are keeping their personal beliefs out of university policy. And they seem to believe that they really don’t believe in anything. I don’t know which of these two beliefs is more pathetic. Maybe they’re equal.

This guy's piece perfectly characterizes a point I've made on this board many times about the inherent tyranny of moral relativism and its mindlessly contradictory nature: there are no absolutes, except, of course, the absolute that there are no absolutes; personal views which disagree with this personal view -- i.e., that there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes -- are unacceptable in the public square, which means, of course, that only the personal views among the personal views that would otherwise be unacceptable that agree with this personal view are not personal. Oh never mind . . . just pass the aspirine.

Inevitably, the only things these sort of mindless thugs -- these anti-rationalists, unwittingly of the Nazi stripe -- will understand with respect to the rights of others are sledgehammers and the business ends of loaded guns.

[DeclinetoState]

The argument for affirmative action is that many minority students score lower on entrance exams and other "objective" criteria because they received their education in inferior schools; therefore, the weighting of their ethnic or racial background is intended to put them on a level playing field and rectify the results of past discrimination (e.g., poor quality "minority-majority" schools).

I have my doubts as to how valid the argument is in the real world, however.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

The argument for affirmative action is that many minority students score lower on entrance exams and other "objective" criteria because they received their education in inferior schools; therefore, the weighting of their ethnic or racial background is intended to put them on a level playing field and rectify the results of past discrimination (e.g., poor quality "minority-majority" schools).

I have my doubts as to how valid the argument is in the real world, however.

The argument has no validity, of course, as it consciously ignores the alternative of educational choice -- the liberation of the children who are trapped in those inferior government schools. Rather than address the problem directly, the left takes the long way around in order to maintain its hegemony over the schools . . . and the welfare roles. Affirmative action is all about votes and keeping those votes dependent on the largesse of the leftist political class.

[Kathy29]

There is no way giving good scores to the undeserving can possibly rectify a lack of education for whatever reason.

Now they are giving the passing score and the student is still quietly shunted off to a remedial class. Everyone pretends it's not so.

Or, the student is allowed to enter classes and soon realizes they are in over their heads and drops out bitter over racisim, classisim, sexisim, or whatever is their blame of choice.

Or, the student is simply passed and passed and passed by various mechanizations of affirmative action until they graduate and then face their lack of education in the harsh marketplace. Some will get a job where they are there for affirmative action purposes, they will get a paycheck, they will be passed over for promotion and get miniscule cost of living raises. They know they have nothing real to do, they know their purpose and then they too will become bitter and blame racisim, classisim and sexisim or whatever is their blame of choice.

If it stopped there, it wouldn't be such a huge problem. It doesn't that bitterness, frustration and blame is passed on to their own children, who may get an education or seeing how little it benefitted a parent may not bother accepting their own failure as a heritage.