Diversity - Can it Be Achieved in Academia?

attackfighter

Emperor
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
1,010
Location
Intellectual Elite HQ
“Diversity” is the new slogan under which academics and their institutions march. But what is it? What does it mean? How will we know when we have achieved a sufficient amount?

In my discipline, sociology, “diversity” can refer to almost anything other than white males, and may even include white males if they can lay claim to some form of victim status (e.g., are LGBT, “differently abled,” vegan, or depart from the mainstream in some other identifiable way).

Significantly, however, “diversity” does not seem to include political diversity.

Sociology departments would actively recruit an LGBT candidate for an opening, with something close to 100 percent consensus that this would fill a departmental need. But actively recruit a Republican, a conservative, or a born-again Christian Fundamentalist? Not a chance.

The quest for “diversity” has become bound up tightly with contemporary identity politics and identity politics have in turn become the third rail of modern university discourse. In that discourse, it is an article of near-religious faith, for example, that any unfortunate condition that can be observed among the African American or Hispanic population is the result of racism and a social structure designed to exclude racial minorities from positions of affluence, influence and power.

http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=3300#.VnIewPMPrSw.twitter

Regressives may control academia today, but they cannot stymie the flow of human spirit forever. True Liberalism will prevail over the false pretender.
 
http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=3300#.VnIewPMPrSw.twitter

Regressives may control academia today, but they cannot stymie the flow of human spirit forever. True Liberalism will prevail over the false pretender.

A true conservative born-again creationist would oppose the natural and social science doctrines anyway, so there's no incentive for academia to recruit them. However, such ideologies are allowed and tolerated in engineering, medicine, law and business.
 
"I am privileged and I don't get positive compensation for that. Discrimination!"

The hilarious thing about this complaint is that it even tacitly accepts the idea of positive compensation.
 
What exactly are you quoting there...
 
"I am privileged and I don't get positive compensation for that. Discrimination!"

The hilarious thing about this complaint is that it even tacitly accepts the idea of positive compensation.
Did you post this in the wrong thread or...... what am I missing here? :confused:
 
Do people who write stuff like this actually live in America? There are more conservatives in America than liberals, by about 35% to 25% according to the most recent numbers. The Republicans have a massive base of support. There are Republican student orgs at just about every decent-sized campus. You'd think, the way these pieces are written, that being a white conservative is like, sooooo rare and hard to come by, but it's far from the truth and there's nothing threatening their day-to-day existence.
 
Did you post this in the wrong thread or...... what am I missing here? :confused:
This is what the refrance:
Sociology departments would actively recruit an LGBT candidate for an opening, with something close to 100 percent consensus that this would fill a departmental need. But actively recruit a Republican, a conservative, or a born-again Christian Fundamentalist? Not a chance.
 
As far as I'm aware, diversity is based on things that cannot be changed rather than choices. Your religion and political affiliation is purely a choice. Being black, gay, or disabled isn't.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think people who make choices like being republican or christian should be barred from entry in academia or the workplace, but it's a different story than when people who have literally zero control over the circumstance of their existence are barred from entry.
 
Interesting definition of the word "diversity"...
 
As far as I'm aware, diversity is based on things that cannot be changed rather than choices. Your religion and political affiliation is purely a choice. Being black, gay, or disabled isn't.

Unless you're that woman who intentionally had herself blinded because she always wanted to be blind. Or Rachel Dolezal.
 
Close collaboration in a social science subject with someone who has totally different political opinions sounds like a recipe for desaster.
 
This is what the refrance:
I don't quite see how your post is a counter to the argument brought foreward. It's not much more than "You have privilege, shut up." - but what about the actual argument?

After all, one of the main arguments for why female quotas are good for everyone is that women bring a unique perspective to the table, so why would the same not be true for political positions? The argument seems to be worth being considered and discussed to me.
 
"“Diversity” is the new slogan under which academics and their institutions march. But what is it?"

:shake: It never occurs to conservative and libertarians to look up the meaning of words

From the University of Oregon:

Definition of Diversity:

The concept of diversity encompasses acceptance and respect. It means understanding that each individual is unique, and recognizing our individual differences. These can be along the dimensions of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or other ideologies. It is the exploration of these differences in a safe, positive, and nurturing environment. It is about understanding each other and moving beyond simple tolerance to embracing and celebrating the rich dimensions of diversity contained within each individual.
 
Okay, here's how it works. You have three friends.
Amber is cool with Bob and Chaz
Bob is cool with Amber and Chaz... except
Chaz is cool with Amber but not Bob

Chaz says he won't go if Bob is invited.

You pick Amber no question, and Bob because Chaz is being a jerk and won't accept Bob, putting the onus on you to choose him over Bob. Bob is not doing this. Bob is cool with Chaz if Chaz chill's out and respect's Bob's validity as a homey, even if they'll never kick it just the two of them.
 
I don't get why people think that diversity yet needs to be 'achieved' in academia, at least from my experience it is already there, as education institutions don't choose students bases on their unchangeable things.

As it currently is, the institutions pick based on the student's grades and interviews. The issue is that to the PC brigade, this isn't enough, and they have their ongoing 'quota' requirements, e.g. If 20% of an areas population is black, therefore 20% of students / employees must be black.

It simply doesn't work that way, and people shouldn't be recruited for simply belonging to some minority.
 
Quotas and diversity are two different things. I got into the law school I did based on presenting myself as offering a background that was diverse from a good deal of my future classmates.
 
Why should such a background even matter? It doesn't affect a persons suitability to the course of study.
 
When there are more qualified applicants for a course of study than there are spots available, then diversity potentially enriches the experience for all that end up selected.
 
Top Bottom