Posted on 04/21/2012 8:08:31 PM PDT by jazusamo
BERKELEY, California Fifteen years ago, California voters were asked: Should colleges consider a student's race when they decide who gets in and who doesn't?
With an emphatic "no," they made California the first state to ban the use of race and ethnicity in public university admissions, as well as hiring and contracting.
Since then, California's most selective public colleges and graduate schools have struggled to assemble student bodies that reflect the state's demographic mix.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
So now if you don’t consider race you’re a racist.
I don’t know about you but when I look for a doctor or an engineer or a lawyer or an architect I couldn’t care less about “diversity” - what I care about is competence.
We all know that the push for “diversity” is just another way for the left to implement “affirmative action”.
But are there circumstances when “diversity” is truly desirable? There are many attributes such as competence, honesty, skill, talent, reliability, etc. where the higher the value of the attribute the better. For example higher honesty is generally considered better than lower, higher reliability is better than lower. Diversity in those attributes is not a good thing. There aren’t too many people yearning for an incompetent doctor.
But there are also attributes whose quality cannot be ranked on a linear scale. Examples of such attributes are color of things, taste, smell, sizes, style, etc. These are subject to personal preferences. So generally speaking one car color is not better than another. It is for such attributes that DIVERSITY is relevant, and it is the amount of variety that determines the level of “quality”. , i.e. the more colors of cars available the better.
College for the most part is about cultivating attributes of the former type (those that can be ranked on a linear scale), though I could see someone making a case that artistic endeavors are more of the latter types (where variety constitutes “quality”). The quality of art and music is in the eyes and hears of the beholder.
Still, the left’s attempt to generalize that diversity is always good is nonsensical, malicious and self-serving - their sole purpose is to dishonestly advance their hidden agenda (which basically consists of relieving their irrational guilt at the expense of the very people they claim to be helping as well as society in general).
"Diversity" has become little more than a proxy for the old-fashioned (and now eye-rolling) "multi-culturalism". I believe it was George Will who long ago nailed "multi-culturalism" as nothing less than an attack on American culture. See, America has no genuine culture of its own - - meaning there's really no such thing as an "American". Rather, this land mass is comprised of numerous, equal cultures who came to America not to become "Americans", but to continue to live in their own culture. That is, to the lefties, America has never been a "melting pot" - - it's only a smorgasbord.
There is either an American culture OR there is a "multi-culture". There cannot be BOTH.
Wrong demographic parameter being emphasized. Rather than skin color, which is not relevant, it perfectly reflects those demographics that value intellectual achievement through personal effort.
John Edwards loved incompetent doctors, I understand. ;-')
Content of charactor not color of thier skin, who said this? MLK a republican!!!
The old route still works.
How do you get to Carnegie Hall?
Practice, practice, practice?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.