New to Tennessee (Knoxville, Pleasant View: colleges, gated, moving)
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.
Tennessee schools until very recently -- last year, I think -- were bound by court order per Geier to demonstrate that they weren't engaging in race-based discrimination.
If that's the case, then why was it not enforced both ways?
According to JMT, if a white male was offered a position, the school had to jump through hoops to prove that the position was advertised to minorities as well. But if a minority was hired, there were no hoops through which anyone had to jump.
That is utterly ridiculous. For one thing, how do you advertise a position exclusively to a minority group? Through the classified section in a rap magazine? The fact that this rule exists shows that Tennessee universities are intent on widening the racial chasm by setting different rules for different races.
If that's the case, then why was it not enforced both ways?
According to JMT, if a white male was offered a position, the school had to jump through hoops to prove that the position was advertised to minorities as well. But if a minority was hired, there were no hoops through which anyone had to jump.
That is utterly ridiculous. For one thing, how do you advertise a position exclusively to a minority group? Through the classified section in a rap magazine? The fact that this rule exists shows that Tennessee universities are intent on widening the racial chasm by setting different rules for different races.
University faculty and administrative positions are routinely advertised in national publications. That's the default mode.
White people don't have a history of being legally and systematically being discriminated against. Geier was designed to redress past discrimination. The world didn't start yesterday -- there are reasons why the court imposed this order on Tennessee schools.
There are plenty of publications geared toward minority groups. Your comment about "rap magazines" says a lot about what you think of minorities.
University faculty and administrative positions are routinely advertised in national publications. That's the default mode.
White people don't have a history of being legally and systematically being discriminated against. Geier was designed to redress past discrimination. The world didn't start yesterday -- there are reasons why the court imposed this order on Tennessee schools.
There are plenty of publications geared toward minority groups. Your comment about "rap magazines" says a lot about what you think of minorities.
White people may not have a history of being discriminated against, but we sure are in the present!
For example, the University of Michigan uses a "point system" for admission purposes in which being black or Hispanic is worth more than a 1600 SAT score. How many points is being white worth? You guessed it, ZERO. If that isn't egregious discrimination, I don't know what is.
And the rap magazine comment was a joke. It's called humor. You should try it sometime.
White people may not have a history of being discriminated against, but we sure are in the present!
For example, the University of Michigan uses a "point system" for admission purposes in which being black or Hispanic is worth more than a 1600 SAT score. How many points is being white worth? You guessed it, ZERO. If that isn't egregious discrimination, I don't know what is.
And the rap magazine comment was a joke. It's called humor. You should try it sometime.
You do realize that Michigan undergrad hasn't used such a point system since 2003 when it was struck down as unconstitutional, right?
You do realize that Michigan undergrad hasn't used such a point system since 2003 when it was struck down as unconstitutional, right?
I guess it was about 2003 when I read about their system, because I was a senior in college at the time. I'll admit that I hadn't heard anything about it since and didn't realize that it had changed. Still, the fact that they even used such a method for determining who they accepted is a testament to how certain segments of society have severely overcompensated for past mistakes.
I'm glad you made that clarification, akm4. I have always enjoyed your posts, and I'm glad to see that you see "diversity" as more than just skin color.
Sadly, many people on both sides of the political spectrum define "diversity" purely by the color of one's skin. This assumes, of course, that all white people think alike, all black people think alike, all Hispanics think alike, etc. In this forum it seems many people use the word "diversity" as merely a code word for non-white.
I think Pimpy is right, too. It's perfectly acceptable for someone to say "I want to live in an area with a diverse population" but it is totally unacceptable for someone to say "I want to live in an area where everyone is white." The thought police have struck again.
Here at my university, diversity is defined as skin color. Anytime a new faculty member is hired, the university has to jump through all kinds of hoops to prove that the position was advertised to minorities, and if a white male is hired, proof has to be filed with the Office of Minority Affairs that there were no females or minorities qualified. Of course, if the university hires an Hispanic faculty member, no papers have to be filed to prove that the position was advertised to white applicants.
Even though 90% of the local population and student body are white, the university has decided that it is unacceptable for 90% of the faculty to be white because skin color is all that counts. Even though 90% of the faculty is liberal and 90% of the student body is conservative, it's only the color of one's skin that counts when it comes to being "diverse."
To me, that's merely giving lip service to diversity and is a slap in the face to those who have fought so that we look BEYOND skin color.
Someone saying "I want to live in an area with a diverse population" is wholly different from someone saying "I want to live in an area where everyone is white." If I heard someone say the latter, I'd be extremely wary of them. I'm not a fan of people segregating themselves amongst racial lines in general but it would be particularly unsettling to hear a white person say they only want to live around white people. It would reek of fear and "white anger" (the flipside of so-called "white guilt" - see the "from Ohio" thread for a prime example of this sort of thing running amuck). As many of you know from reading my posts, I abhor fear rhetoric.
Is the university you're referring to UTK??? If so, even if you take race completely out of the equation, "diversity" at UTK and Knoxville is still very much lacking. While I enjoyed my four years there for undergrad, Knoxville was the homogeneous place I've ever spent a considerable amount of time. It is a beautiful town but certainly not a place where being anything other than status quo is appreciated...but I'm digressing.
The strongest reason institutions of higher education seek underrepresented minority faculty, staff and students is because there is a large disparity between the ratio of blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans in these institutions compared to US as a whole. This same discrepancy unfortunately carries over to professional life. While I appreciate some of its' validy, the "remedy for past discrimination" argument isn't a completely compelling one and sugarcoats the whole truth.
In truth, racial diversity in higher education is embraced because people realize the best way to encourage other struggling racial minorities to succeed is to place actual "models" of success in front of them. So, if we're so sick of seeing black and Hispanic "gangbangers" roaming Nashville, then why frown upon those programs which are actually in place to prove to them that they can make something of themselves??? It seems counterproductive to me.
I guess it was about 2003 when I read about their system, because I was a senior in college at the time. I'll admit that I hadn't heard anything about it since and didn't realize that it had changed. Still, the fact that they even used such a method for determining who they accepted is a testament to how certain segments of society have severely overcompensated for past mistakes.
Quotas are unconstitutional as well so you will not see those used. You will find many higher education institutions use loose "goals" and consider race amongst numerous other factors when choosing a diverse student body. This was upheld as constitution in Grutter which was the University of Michigan Law School case which was the companion to the undergrad case. I'm sure Michigan undergrad along with the overwhelming majority of public univiersity systems probably use a similar method which complies with that standard.
Quotas are unconstitutional as well so you will not see those used. You will find many higher education institutions use loose "goals" and consider race amongst numerous other factors when choosing a diverse student body. This was upheld as constitution in Grutter which was the University of Michigan Law School case which was the companion to the undergrad case. I'm sure Michigan undergrad along with the overwhelming majority public univiersity systems probably use a similar method which complies with that standard.
Why should race be considered at all? It is completely arbitrary and has no bearing on how deserving a candidate is, unlike merit factors such as grades, SAT, ACT, community involvement, etc.
People close to Michelle Obongo have even admitted that her scores weren't high enough to justify admission to Princeton, yet she got in anyway on account of her race... then had the audacity to write a thesis about how blacks aren't given a fair shake on campus. There's just something wrong with that picture!
Ahh "diversity". What is blatantly missing from the conversation is intellectual and ideological diversity. If that is factored into the standard, then San Francisco is one of the most myopic, intolerant places in America. Trust me, I'm a Californian. I know. To be a Conservative, or G*d Forbid, a Republican, is to be treated as a Second Class citizen. The Bay Area is the "Jim Crow" South of ideological diversity. To go one better, we recently visited relatives in San Francisco, City of. We went to Golden Gate Park to watch one of the kids' soccer games. I counted one black child and a couple of Asian kids. No Hispanics. Not just part of the soccer games, but in the immediate park area! I teased my VERY strident and judgemental liberal relative when I asked if it was a "White's Only" park. It was surreal. (She puts HER kids in a nice, safe private school, BTW). You must understand that San Francisco is a very hostile place if you don't march in lock-step with the far-left mindset. Keep this in mind as you judge other parts of the country. People are leaving California in droves and whether these refugees (myself included) admit it or not, it is the failed policies of liberal activism undermining the state. You ruined California. Stay there and live with it.
Ahh "diversity". What is blatantly missing from the conversation is intellectual and ideological diversity. If that is factored into the standard, then San Francisco is one of the most myopic, intolerant places in America. Trust me, I'm a Californian. I know. To be a Conservative, or G*d Forbid, a Republican, is to be treated as a Second Class citizen. The Bay Area is the "Jim Crow" South of ideological diversity. To go one better, we recently visited relatives in San Francisco, City of. We went to Golden Gate Park to watch one of the kids' soccer games. I counted one black child and a couple of Asian kids. No Hispanics. Not just part of the soccer games, but in the immediate park area! I teased my VERY strident and judgemental liberal relative when I asked if it was a "White's Only" park. It was surreal. (She puts HER kids in a nice, safe private school, BTW). You must understand that San Francisco is a very hostile place if you don't march in lock-step with the far-left mindset. Keep this in mind as you judge other parts of the country. People are leaving California in droves and whether these refugees (myself included) admit it or not, it is the failed policies of liberal activism undermining the state. You ruined California. Stay there and live with it.
California, and particularly San Francisco, has been compared to granola since at least the 1980's: "Take out the fruits and nuts, and all that's left are the flakes."
As far as I'm concerned, the illegals can have that cesspool of a state. It's too far gone to be rescued. Let's pour our resources into areas that actually have a fighting chance at regaining some of the values upon which this country was founded.
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.
