Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Restrictions or attempts to tilt the ethnic makeup of schools and the workplace have an ugly history. Back in the 1920's universities imposed quotas limiting the number of Jewish students they accepted, fearing that they'd be overrun with them. Jews' valuing education led and continues to lead to spending money on tutors, and parents enforcing iron discipline on the completion of school work; qualities that now mark many Asian families. The practice was also prevalent in the workplace, as highlighted by Alan Dershowitz in his book Chutzpah. Despite top grades at Harvard Law School he had trouble getting a job after law school. When the world learned of the Holocaust this became less acceptable.
A new label for the policy was needed. For a while it was called "affirmative action." Now it's called "diversity." The push for "diversity" has run into the shoals of the demands of people who succeed in the higher education settings and the workplace, namely Asians and Jews.
With regard to Asian-Americans:
Quote:
Originally Posted by New York Times discussing U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions
The department, which has been investigating Harvard for potential civil rights violations over its affirmative action policy, made its argument in documents filed in federal court in Boston, where the case is scheduled to go to trial in October.
The Justice Department argued that Harvard had failed to prove that its use of race as a factor in deciding which students to admit had not resulted in it illegally discriminating against Asian-Americans.
Instead, the department said the evidence in the lawsuit by Students for Fair Admissions showed Harvard's admissions process "significantly disadvantages" Asian-Americans compared with other groups.
With regard to Jewish people, Kenneth L. Marcus, the assistant secretary of education for civil rights is readying to reopen a lawsuit dropped by the Obama Justice Department about anti-Jewish discrimination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New York Times discussing Kenneth L. Marcus
In a letter to the Zionist Organization of America, obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Marcus said he would vacate a 2014 decision by the Obama administration and re-examine the conservative Jewish group’s cause not as a case of religious freedom but as possible discrimination against an ethnic group.
Pro-diversity policies have become a cover for favoring certain vote-rich minority groups. Diversity should be inclusive of all groups, not just groups that have less than their share of success. Perhaps those groups should do what the Asian-Americans and Jews do; try at work and school.
One thing we are not allowed to talk about is diversity, unless it is the tortured language of the politically-correct academics, and that makes my head hurt.
I think I'll go read a post about kids losing their ability to use a pencil, or some other random thing....
Restrictions or attempts to tilt the ethnic makeup of schools and the workplace have an ugly history. Back in the 1920's universities imposed quotas limiting the number of Jewish students they accepted, fearing that they'd be overrun with them. Jews' valuing education led and continues to lead to spending money on tutors, and parents enforcing iron discipline on the completion of school work; qualities that now mark many Asian families. The practice was also prevalent in the workplace, as highlighted by Alan Dershowitz in his book Chutzpah. Despite top grades at Harvard Law School he had trouble getting a job after law school. When the world learned of the Holocaust this became less acceptable.
A new label for the policy was needed. For a while it was called "affirmative action." Now it's called "diversity." The push for "diversity" has run into the shoals of the demands of people who succeed in the higher education settings and the workplace, namely Asians and Jews.
With regard to Asian-Americans:
With regard to Jewish people, Kenneth L. Marcus, the assistant secretary of education for civil rights is readying to reopen a lawsuit dropped by the Obama Justice Department about anti-Jewish discrimination.
Pro-diversity policies have become a cover for favoring certain vote-rich minority groups. Diversity should be inclusive of all groups, not just groups that have less than their share of success. Perhaps those groups should do what the Asian-Americans and Jews do; try at work and school.
No one's stopping them.
This Princeton professor has an interesting take on "diversity"
Quote:
The checkered history of 'diversity' demonstrates that it was designed largely as a cover to achieve other legally, morally, and politically controversial goals.
And:
Quote:
While almost all college administrators and college admissions officers at the most elite institutions think in racial balancing and racial quota-like terms when they assemble their student body, they almost always deny this publically in a blizzard of rhetoric about a more far-flung "diversity."
Indeed, there is probably no other area where college administrators are more likely to lie or conceal the truth of what they are doing than in the area of admissions and race.
And how can policies like this be considered fair?
Not to mention this.
This admissions study reaffirmed the importance of extra-curricular activities on an application, those who had leadership roles or won awards improved their chances of being accepted even more. Except activities more associated with more rural areas, like junior ROTC, 4-H clubs, and Future Farmers of America. Students who participated in these types of activities actually reduced their chances of being accepted, with those in leadership and those who excelled hurt their chances the most, cutting their chance of admission by up to 65%. Unfortunately, the authors don't give any explanation for what they found. On the surface it sounds like obvious discrimination, but there's not enough detail to warrant lighting torches and sharpening the pitchfork.
"Diversity" Can Include Normally Successful Minority Groups Too
(The quotation marks strike me as unnecessary, and perhaps intentional baiting...nevertheless, "Fools rush in...etc.")
My personal idea of diversity: I am a white male of almost exclusively Irish ancestry, except for two Loyalists <gasp!> who fled to Canada. So, regarding myself diversity means not-like-me. Not white, not of Western European background, not male....I am not a Christian, but still I would say not Christian given that they are a traditional majority in the U.S. (And since I am moving outward from myself, that would mean non-LGBT as well. )
I began my life in NYC in 1960 living in a poor Hispanic and non-white neighborhood. And at one point I lived on what the NY Times nominated at the year's worst block in Manhattan. From the early 70s to the early 90s I worked in an environment that had a large percentage of Jews, other whites and smaller numbers of Asians, Latinos and African-Americans. And I am gay....sorry, LGBTxyz. But I think my personal idea of diversity has its deep roots in my life experience prior to NYC.
My thoughts on what diversity appears to mean socially and politically: Primarily African-Americans, and running second Hispanics. Asians give the Deciders and Definers the heebie-jeebies. Yeah, they look different from whites but they are scarily successful at school and in professions....eeek! Jews? You gotta be kidding. Native Americans....uh, huh?
My opinion about the above is that the U.S. is using the term diversity primarily to get a handle on its non-love affair with African-Americans dating back even before the Revolution. And neither white nor African-American majorities, IMO, are very honest about the amount of distaste they still have for each other. The "handle" has so much icky stuff on it at this point that no one is really comfortable touching it...except for political fodder. I think Asians are considered quasi-honorary whites. Non-Christians are preferable as visiting lecturers. And if you are into PC as a near religion then it is slice and dice forever...as with all religious purists.
Diversity is a two edged sword. It's cuts both ways. How can the leading American university have a student body made up of only 2 ethic groups: Jews and Orientals? This would happen is it weren't for diversity.
How can America's leading university give an advantage to applicants of a certain race? This is what happens now. It's how blacks and whites get in.
Take one of the other.
I take the 2nd. Harvard prepares the leaders of America. In a country of many peoples, it isn't acceptable to have leaders come from only 2 of them. The country would stand for it.
Time and again we have seen when the government gets involved with something they botch it up.
Shouldn't the best person for the job get the job?
Shouldn't the best students get to go to college?
Affirmative Action/ Diversity whatever they want to call it is not good for the general population because it stifles the opportunity for people to lift themselves up to a higher standard.
Affirmative Action tells minorities that it is OK to not be as smart as a a white/Asia person when they should be studying harder to earn a spot in college.
Diversity is a two edged sword. It's cuts both ways. How can the leading American university have a student body made up of only 2 ethic groups: Jews and Orientals? This would happen is it weren't for diversity.
How can America's leading university give an advantage to applicants of a certain race? This is what happens now. It's how blacks and whites get in.
Take one of the other.
I take the 2nd. Harvard prepares the leaders of America. In a country of many peoples, it isn't acceptable to have leaders come from only 2 of them. The country would stand for it.
And I take the first. Harvard is widely considered to be the best university in America, if not the world; it is known for producing leaders. And I want to be led by nothing but the very best. If that means I'm destined to be led by no one except Jews and Asians, then so be it.
I believe in America as a meritocracy. The first option preserves that ideal. The second one perverts it.
The Education Dept. case is about Rutgers failing to effectively address a hostile university environment for Jewish students caused by pro-Palestinian activism on that campus. Maybe this is akin to Antifa mob violence at Berkeley when Milo Yiannopoulos was to give a talk there and the failure of police to provide adequate protection.
The second case is about using race to penalize people in the college admissions process... Asian people at Harvard. The average Asian student needs to be smarter than the average white, and, especially, *Hispanic* or black student to get in there.
Before you can have any real discussion about the role of diversity in our society we must first answer the question of what the purpose of promoting diversity in a society is. Why is it important? Why is making some societies that are not diverse in to more diverse societies an important goal, but not so for others? When you understand the motives behind the push for diversity then you can better answer questions about the application of it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
