Diversity and inclusion Gone Wild

[mahagonny]

I wouldn't trust CapCon particularly: they are a publication of the "free market" Mackinac Center, which like all "education and policy" "think tanks" seem to produce nothing but agitprops.

However, it should be fairly easy, if one was so inclined, to check up on the salary ($396,550) of Robert Sellers who is mentioned in the article.  It seems unlikely that this is a falsification, even if the article itself cooks the books. 

There have been many debates on these boards about the need to chop programs and the necessity of contingent labor to the balance the budget.  And sure, diversity is important.

But that is a lot of money to pay one person who appears to teach on the side of administrative duties in this age of academic austerity.

According to this source it's $420,698. That would be base salary, I assume. Not including perks, benefits, stock options, whatever. https://www.umsalary.info/index.php?FName=robert+&LName=sellers&Year=0

I found the article I was thinking about last week...https://www.theepochtimes.com/diversity-obsession-partly-to-blame-for-rise-in-anti-semitism_3187730.html

This is another time that I'm thinking, thank God for the Jews. They're not afraid to square off against something powerful.

"Where you worship diversity, there will always be winners and losers in that diversity. Like it or not, it creates a pecking order. And these pecking orders are reinforced, consciously and unconsciously, by our media, entertainment, and the academy."

[craftyprof]

We live in a racist, classist, heteronormative, patriarchal and otherwise bigoted society. There have always been winners and losers.  Are you mad that there are winners or are you mad that it's not your turn anymore?

[mahagonny]

We live in a racist, classist, heteronormative, patriarchal and otherwise bigoted society. There have always been winners and losers.  Are you mad that there are winners or are you mad that it's not your turn anymore?

Aha...you would like me to do some soul searching. I don't believe we've been properly introduced. Are you a professional counsellor and business has been slow?

If I were mad about something (I believe 'angry' is the better diction) it wouldn't have any bearing on the validity of my challenge to the emphasis on, and investment in, diversity and inclusion enforcement to demonstrate its value. It's either as important as we've been led to believe or it's not. It's either an earnest effort that is reasonably well disciplined or it's been headed for corruption and lunacy, as some have said.

[Diogenes]

I found the article I was thinking about last week...https://www.theepochtimes.com/diversity-obsession-partly-to-blame-for-rise-in-anti-semitism_3187730.html

Public Service Announcement:
The Epoch Times is basically owned by the Falun Gong cult. The Epoch Times has been intentionally publishing divisive and false claims, such as all sorts of Q-Anon style conspiracy theories. It's unknown whether it's due to the cult wanting political agitation, the head trying to get personal favor from Trump, or because it sells. But you should not support it.

[genericusername]

As someone who has been on search committees, it doesn't happen that often, but I have definitely seen candidates who are going to have a hard time with our very diverse students because of massive blind spots. The clearest example was a dude who had some potential issues with women in technology/startup based on his diversity statement points, which we followed up on in the in-person interview, and yep, very obvious issues.

So yes, while I agree that it sucks to have to write yet another thing for the job packet, they indeed can be indicative of people with potential red flags, who might not be treating all students equally AND (importantly) it seems like some of these people have zero idea that it is the case. The guy I'm thinking of totally thought he was like, an advocate of women, if you can imagine. Yet based on his comment, it was clear that he was going to have issues.

I believe that if you can't do a good enough job with our diverse students, you don't deserve a job here.

And if you're a dude and feeling defensive and put on the spot here, you should realize that this is one guy out of so many rounds. You're probably not that guy. But you should know that it does happen, even if that's not you or your friends.

[mahagonny]

I found the article I was thinking about last week...https://www.theepochtimes.com/diversity-obsession-partly-to-blame-for-rise-in-anti-semitism_3187730.html

Public Service Announcement:
The Epoch Times is basically owned by the Falun Gong cult. The Epoch Times has been intentionally publishing divisive and false claims, such as all sorts of Q-Anon style conspiracy theories. It's unknown whether it's due to the cult wanting political agitation, the head trying to get personal favor from Trump, or because it sells. But you should not support it.

Well, I didn't know that. Never heard of these folks till now; I read it on realclearpolitics. But just because  a weirdo believes something, if that's what Roger Simon is, doesn't make it false.
What are you going to add here, Diogenes? Do you think 'is there administrative bloat' is a question that people may ask?

[marshwiggle]

We live in a racist, classist, heteronormative, patriarchal and otherwise bigoted society.

Statistically, heterosexuality is the norm. The simple fact that something is predominant does not automatically constitute some sort of disparagement of anything else. Same goes for ethnicity, income, or shoe size.

There have always been winners and losers.  Are you mad that there are winners or are you mad that it's not your turn anymore?

In contests, such as the Olympics, "winners and losers" are based on performance; it isn't based on any sort of schedule where everyone gets "a turn". If the rules are unfair, or if someone is cheating, then there is a problem, but the mere existence of winners and losers is not inherently bad. It's a reflection of the real differences in ability between participants.

[Wahoo Redux]

These discussions often devolve into stereotypes, strawman arguments, and ad homs ("You're a white man!  Got a problem with diversity!?  Angry because you are not on top any more!?").

I think we all know, or all should know, that many kinds of bigotry exist, even within our own ranks, and that we should not support bigots of any stripe.

I think we all know that old white guys have had the upper hand since the Greeks displaced the elder fertility goddesses with hyper-masculine war and nature gods.

And I suspect we all observe diversity as an ethically good and culturally healthy thing.

The issue, as framed by the OP, is not 'is diversity bad,' but "[The diversity office is] dominating the college mission statement. They're telling us how to teach. Which means they're also telling us how not to teach. They almost seem incapable of processing any experience without responding in 'inclusion/diversity' speak."

And I am sorry, but that has been my experience too.

I am a pretty liberal white middle class male who has actively worked on three different diversity initiatives in my career (including developing a diversity internship for a student of color), am married to someone who could legitimately make the claim to being in a protected group, and has taken part in numerous events and protests for diversity.

As I see it, the issue is a question of when does "diversity" (this good thing) become an unhealthy, domineering factor in the university?

[marshwiggle]

These discussions often devolve into stereotypes, strawman arguments, and ad homs ("You're a white man!  Got a problem with diversity!?  Angry because you are not on top any more!?").

I think we all know, or all should know, that many kinds of bigotry exist, even within our own ranks, and that we should not support bigots of any stripe.

I think we all know that old white guys have had the upper hand since the Greeks displaced the elder fertility goddesses with hyper-masculine war and nature gods.

And I suspect we all observe diversity as an ethically good and culturally healthy thing.

The issue, as framed by the OP, is not 'is diversity bad,' but "[The diversity office is] dominating the college mission statement. They're telling us how to teach. Which means they're also telling us how not to teach. They almost seem incapable of processing any experience without responding in 'inclusion/diversity' speak."

And I am sorry, but that has been my experience too.

I am a pretty liberal white middle class male who has actively worked on three different diversity initiatives in my career (including developing a diversity internship for a student of color), am married to someone who could legitimately make the claim to being in a protected group, and has taken part in numerous events and protests for diversity.

As I see it, the issue is a question of when does "diversity" (this good thing) become an unhealthy, domineering factor in the university?

I agree with all of this. I simply wanted to add that, relevant to the portion I've highlighted, if you go to any country where the majority is not white, you'll find the same kind of bias against "outsiders"; it's not a flaw specific to white people. And there are lots of well-meaning people in those countries fighting against that there as well.

[Caracal]

I agree with all of this. I simply wanted to add that, relevant to the portion I've highlighted, if you go to any country where the majority is not white, you'll find the same kind of bias against "outsiders"; it's not a flaw specific to white people. And there are lots of well-meaning people in those countries fighting against that there as well.

I feel the need to point out that that this this isn't really true as a universal proposition. Sure, humans as social creatures are attended to differences and tend to make social meanings of those differences. Race is a very particular construct about how differences in skin color should be codified and the meanings that they should have. The idea that it is about majorities and minorities is actually embedded in a particularly late 20th century American context. In antebellum South Carolina enslaved black people were the majority.

[ciao_yall]

I agree with all of this. I simply wanted to add that, relevant to the portion I've highlighted, if you go to any country where the majority is not white, you'll find the same kind of bias against "outsiders"; it's not a flaw specific to white people. And there are lots of well-meaning people in those countries fighting against that there as well.

I feel the need to point out that that this this isn't really true as a universal proposition. Sure, humans as social creatures are attended to differences and tend to make social meanings of those differences. Race is a very particular construct about how differences in skin color should be codified and the meanings that they should have. The idea that it is about majorities and minorities is actually embedded in a particularly late 20th century American context. In antebellum South Carolina enslaved black people were the majority.

Exactly.

"Minority" is a social concept, not a numeric one.

[marshwiggle]

I agree with all of this. I simply wanted to add that, relevant to the portion I've highlighted, if you go to any country where the majority is not white, you'll find the same kind of bias against "outsiders"; it's not a flaw specific to white people. And there are lots of well-meaning people in those countries fighting against that there as well.

I feel the need to point out that that this this isn't really true as a universal proposition. Sure, humans as social creatures are attended to differences and tend to make social meanings of those differences. Race is a very particular construct about how differences in skin color should be codified and the meanings that they should have. The idea that it is about majorities and minorities is actually embedded in a particularly late 20th century American context. In antebellum South Carolina enslaved black people were the majority.

If I recall correctly, in ancient Rome slaves outnumbered citizens about 2 to 1. If that's correct, then that kind of predates the American south.

[Aster]

I feel more diverse participating in this discussion. I wonder if I can count this an professional development. I've certainly gotten more out of it than most diversity workshops sponsored by the university.

[Parasaurolophus]

If I recall correctly, in ancient Rome slaves outnumbered citizens about 2 to 1. If that's correct, then that kind of predates the American south.

Ancient world slavery wasn't race-based.

[Wahoo Redux]

I feel more diverse participating in this discussion. I wonder if I can count this an professional development. I've certainly gotten more out of it than most diversity workshops sponsored by the university.

That's because this is an anonymous board not related to employment, and so no one is afraid to say what they are thinking.