Monday, November 21, 2005

Diversity declines at university

In the Tribune today there was an article about declining diversity at the University of Utah. "We do not feel enough is being done to make sure we (Hispanic students) are admitted [to the U.] and stay until we earn a degree," said Daisy Ramirez, Hispanic Student Association president and "Social Justice" major. "It's already sad to be the only one of color in your classes. . . . Now, it's getting worse." Many diversity proponents argue that admission requirements (a student admitted to the U. must score at least 18 on the ACT test and have at least a 2.6 grade-point average) are geared toward middle-class white Americans.

Pop quiz, what does diversity mean? When I think of diversity, I think of differing opinions, points of view, backgrounds, etc. in this sense diversity should be a subject inclusive of all people. But, as I'm starting to understand, diversity seems to be a more PC word for affirmative action. Don't get me wrong I believe affirmative action has done a lot to progress equal right for minorities and women. The problem is no one wants (or dares) to let go of Affirmative Action, least of all the hard left. It seems to me that Affirmative Action and "diversity requirements" are statements to Hispanics, African-Americans, Jewish-Americans, Gays, and Lesbians that you aren't strong enough, smart enough, able enough to make it through this world yourself. These "diversity" requirements will continue to foster mistrust and inequality among races in America for generations to come.

I would defy American institutions to drop diversity requirements. There are more important issues to be addressed in college, i.e. helping students progress expeditiously through their desired fields of study, instead of wasting time in liberal indoctrination courses. We have some strong examples of minorities who have succeeded: Conde Rice, Clarence Thomas, and Colin Powell. However, time and time again liberal minority leaders have derided these people as sell outs, because they have the courage to say that minorities need to stop using race as an excuse for failure.

Tip for colleges and universities: Maybe diversity training should be focused at some liberal arts and social science professors? Some of these professors have no respect for opposing viewpoints. I majored in Business, thereby circumventing most of these types of professors. However, SUU (I'm sure any college has their share) had a sociology professor that was notorious for tyrannically belittling students who dared openly oppose his liberal rhetoric.

I'm glad I missed diversity indoctrination... I mean requirements. I'm sure some will discount my viewpoint because I didn't go through a school that had rigorous diversity requirements, but thats the way I see it.

1 comment:

coltakashi said...

As a Japanese American (I am an immigrant from Japan, my mother is Japanese, I worked there as an adult for 5 years, and speak the language), I concur that "diversity" is a poorly defined quality, but that is why it is valuable to the liberals who want to manipulate outcomes on the basis of race--they are "racists"--instead of providing equal opportunities for people of every race, religion, etc. to make their own choices and implement them through their own work and sacrifice. Everything that has ever been said about the mental capacity of any non-white race has been said about Asians (especially Chinese and Japanese), but Asian-Americans are now so successful that many liberals in California and Michigan want to revoke their status as "minorities." The "diversity" argument of universities is that it is important in the education of college students to have a diverse student body. However, in practice, black and Hispanic students tend to self-segregate on campus, and some colleges have even held separate commencement exercises to accommodate that separatism. My own hypothesis is that, for every quantum of good will and understanding that is fostered by "diversity" among students through racial quotas, there are two quanta of resentment fostered because (a) all minority students are stigmatized as being too stupid to compete equally with whites and (b) all minority students are stigmatized for being perceived as depriving better qualified white students from going to that university. These stigmas are accepted because (a) is in fact the underlying assumption of those who run affirmative action programs and (b) is, in the case of affirmative action admittees, true. In the most competitive universities and graduate schools, one of two things will occur for affirmative action students: Either (a) they will succeed, despite not having the purported minimum admission qualifications, thus showing the "elite" image of those schools is a crock, or (b) they will fail, because they have been dumped into a competition for grades where they start with a tremendous disadvantage, and will waste a year of their lives and then be stigmatized by dropping or flunking out. NO professor who preaches "diversity" is going to tell his white students that he plans to adjust the grades for examinations based on race; he would have a rebellion, as well as engender racial resentment between people who have to see each other every day. Admitting studnets who by definition are not as well equipped to compete means they will either undergo a remarkable transformation, and pull up their grades quickly, or they will smash against the unavoidable cliff of meritocracy that is demanded by competitive universities and companies who hire from them.