Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 89 of 89

Thread: "How are you diverse?" Is Academia beyond hope?

  1. Top | #81
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    15,598
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    57,541
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    [removed]
    As usual, a calm and measured response.

    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Toni disputed my claim of fact and offered a counterclaim of fact that she did not evidence.
    Which is not disputing your memory. Nor is disproving your claim.
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    I evidenced my claim, and Toni evidenced nothing. [removed]
    I questioned your claim of fact because your "evidence" was and is insufficient on its face, and because it really is not evidence of some obsession within academia unless you have the stupid idea that the Ivy Leagues encompass academia or are an appropriate non-random sample of academia. Questioning a claim of fact is not a personal attack as you were alleging.

    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    There'd be a way to know it if the data were formally collected. But since we don't have that, we can only collect it informally.
    "Informally" as in using non-random small samples? LOL. d

    You have already demonstrated in this thread that your knowledge of US academia is lacking. There is no reason to accept your confidence in your ability to form conclusions about US academia from unreliable data.

    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    [removed] I brought it up because Ivy League sweepers almost always being black is consistent with, and further evidence of, the academy's problematic obsession with diversity.
    You think that using a non-random small sample from a population of unknown size and distribution is useful information and I do not.
    [removed response to removed items]

    "Sweepers" would be consistent with your hypothesis if we had the relevant information.As you admit, we don't. So anyone who can read and form coherent thoughts can see that they are not further evidence of the academy's unproven and undefined problematic obsession with diversity. In essence, you used anecdotes to support one of your crusades against change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    But, I don't care to argue it any more. Anybody who can read and form coherent thoughts can see that I have good evidence for my position and Toni has no evidence for hers. [removed]
    Your response and your argument are strong evidence that you are in no position to judge whether someone can read and form coherent thoughts. Since there is evidence in this thread and in your response that you may not understand the previous sentence, [removed]
    Last edited by Rhea; 12-27-2019 at 02:32 AM. Reason: Consistency

  2. Top | #82
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    25,640
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    122,392
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    The impression I have got, since starting to learn more about this topic and reading about it quite a lot during my time here, is that the American universities, or some at least, those that practice the sorts of things brought up here (favouring black applicants to at least some extent and in some ways) do believe in the principles of and justifications for affirmative action (possibly for reasons that partly have to do with a desire for more social justice, generally speaking, but that may not be the only reason) and they put this into practice via diversity criteria, because as I understand it, that is one of the few ways, possibly the only way, they are allowed to do it nowadays, all other avenues having been more or less closed off to them during the gradual dismantling of certain, 'strong' types of AA over the last 30-40 years. Since Ronald Reagan came to office, approximately. I think that was more or less the turning point.
    There's nothing honorable about finding new ways to engage in bad behavior.

  3. Top | #83
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    25,640
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    122,392
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    And even if she was asked several times about diversity, that says nothing about how many times she was asked about other subjects. At 59 interviews that lasted an hour each, that seems like a lot of uncomfortable silence plus a few questions about diversity. The numbers just plain don't add up. For all we know about this person, she could be just as maniacally obsessed about diversity as you are. It certainly seems so.

    As for the HR person asking about staff hiring priorities of a person that will be hiring staff, that seems totally appropriate to me.

    So again I ask you, at what number of diversity questions does education become a "lost cause"? Is it a particular number or is it a ratio?
    It doesn't matter how many other questions she was asked. It was a question that should not have been asked and in a proper system would have brought the wrath of the EEOC down on them.

    How about a company that asks if your spouse is of the same race you are? Put that way I'm sure you don't like it.
    She quoted the questions. Perhaps you could cite which ones you feel would violate the EEOC.

    And your example is a non-sequitur.
    Asking how you are diverse is basically saying "cis white males need not apply".

  4. Top | #84
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    25,640
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    122,392
    Rep Power
    97
    Something to keep in mind: The number admitted to all 8 says much more about the application process than the students. To get admitted to all 8 means you applied to all 8. Most students aren't going to do that.

  5. Top | #85
    Elder Contributor barbos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Mlky Way galaxy
    Posts
    10,081
    Archived
    8,047
    Total Posts
    18,128
    Rep Power
    63
    Bottom line, higher education should simply be more affordable. And the way to achieve that is to fire all non-essential personal, that includes $400K/year diversicrats. If it were up to me I would have killed professional sport at universities, I know, they earn money all that school spirit crap, but come on, it is getting ridiculous.

  6. Top | #86
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    6,394
    Rep Power
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    The impression I have got, since starting to learn more about this topic and reading about it quite a lot during my time here, is that the American universities, or some at least, those that practice the sorts of things brought up here (favouring black applicants to at least some extent and in some ways) do believe in the principles of and justifications for affirmative action (possibly for reasons that partly have to do with a desire for more social justice, generally speaking, but that may not be the only reason) and they put this into practice via diversity criteria, because as I understand it, that is one of the few ways, possibly the only way, they are allowed to do it nowadays, all other avenues having been more or less closed off to them during the gradual dismantling of certain, 'strong' types of AA over the last 30-40 years. Since Ronald Reagan came to office, approximately. I think that was more or less the turning point.
    There's nothing honorable about finding new ways to engage in bad behavior.
    It's your opinion that it's bad behaviour. The controversial question of whether it is or not is not settled or agreed on. Either way, the impression I get is that academia, and indeed the judiciary to a certain extent, did not fully go along with the attempted dismantling of AA by (mainly Republican) politicians, in other words did not go along with the idea that AA is necessarily a bad thing. What I find interesting to note, as a reasonably objective aspect of the overall debate, is that those two relevant, generally respected and quite influential societal entities broadly appear to have taken that line. Which was the point of my post.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 12-09-2019 at 11:26 AM.

  7. Top | #87
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    25,640
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    122,392
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by barbos View Post
    Bottom line, higher education should simply be more affordable. And the way to achieve that is to fire all non-essential personal, that includes $400K/year diversicrats. If it were up to me I would have killed professional sport at universities, I know, they earn money all that school spirit crap, but come on, it is getting ridiculous.
    Note that the biggest cause of the "increase" is government cutting funding so the students pick up a far larger chunk of the cost. The actual budget of public universities hasn't been exploding like tuition has.

  8. Top | #88
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    25,640
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    122,392
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    The impression I have got, since starting to learn more about this topic and reading about it quite a lot during my time here, is that the American universities, or some at least, those that practice the sorts of things brought up here (favouring black applicants to at least some extent and in some ways) do believe in the principles of and justifications for affirmative action (possibly for reasons that partly have to do with a desire for more social justice, generally speaking, but that may not be the only reason) and they put this into practice via diversity criteria, because as I understand it, that is one of the few ways, possibly the only way, they are allowed to do it nowadays, all other avenues having been more or less closed off to them during the gradual dismantling of certain, 'strong' types of AA over the last 30-40 years. Since Ronald Reagan came to office, approximately. I think that was more or less the turning point.
    There's nothing honorable about finding new ways to engage in bad behavior.
    It's your opinion that it's bad behaviour. The controversial question of whether it is or not is not settled or agreed on. Either way, the impression I get is that academia, and indeed the judiciary to a certain extent, did not fully go along with the attempted dismantling of AA by (mainly Republican) politicians, in other words did not go along with the idea that AA is necessarily a bad thing. What I find interesting to note, as a reasonably objective aspect of the overall debate, is that those two relevant, generally respected and quite influential societal entities broadly appear to have taken that line. Which was the point of my post.
    When it's been put to the voters they are solidly against such preferences.

  9. Top | #89
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    6,394
    Rep Power
    16
    First, that’s a different point to the one you had made before I replied.

    Second, I can’t assess it without some data or citations.

    Third, in polls, the picture appears mixed.

    Fourth, I read that in a ballot in Washington State last month, the anti-affirmative majority was very slight (50.4%)

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...allot.amp.html

    In any case, let’s be clear, the question of whether it’s popular or not is different to the question of whether it’s bad or good, or right or wrong. That is a matter of ongoing debate.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •