Posted on 01/22/2020 3:42:22 AM PST by Kaslin
It's nearly impossible to have even a short conversation with a college administrator, politician or chief executive without the words diversity and inclusion dropping from their lips. Diversity and inclusion appear to be the end-all and be-all of their existence. So, I thought I'd begin this discussion by first looking up the definition of diversity.
According to the Oxford Dictionary, diversity is "the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc." The definition gratuitously adds, "equality and diversity should be supported for their own sake." The standard definition given for inclusion is involvement and empowerment where the inherent worth and dignity of all people are recognized.
Here's my question to those who are wedded to diversity and inclusion: Are people better off the less they have in common with one another? For example, women are less likely to be able to march 12.4 miles in five hours with an 83-pound assault load. They are also less likely to be able to crawl, sprint, negotiate obstacles and move a wounded comrade weighing 165 pounds while carrying that load. Would anyone argue that a military outfit would benefit from diversity by including soldiers who can and those who cannot march 12 miles in five hours while carrying an 83-pound load?
You say, "Williams, the military is an exception!" What about language? The International Civil Aviation Organization has decreed that all air traffic controllers and flight crew members engaged in or in contact with international flights must be proficient in the English language as a general spoken medium. According to UNESCO, there are about 7,000 languages in the world. The International Civil Aviation Organization could promote language inclusiveness by requiring language rotation. Some years, Cebuano (of the Malayo-Polynesian language family) and in other years Kinyarwanda (of the Niger-Congo language family) could be the language of pilots and air traffic controllers. Keep in mind that it is claimed that the great benefit of diversity and inclusiveness is that it promotes and fosters a sense of belonging. It values and practices respect for the differences in the talents, beliefs, backgrounds and ways of living of its members.
Another issue is what should be done when people who should know better praise non-diversity and non-inclusiveness? Civil rights leader Rev. Jesse L. Jackson said, "I applaud commissioner Adam Silver's commitment to diversity and inclusion within the NBA." During the 2018-2019 season, more than 33% of NBA teams had head coaches of color. The number of assistant head coaches of color was over 42%. The number of black NBA players was 82%. In the face of these statistics, Oris Stuart, the NBA's chief diversity and inclusion officer said, "Diversity, inclusion and equality are central to every aspect of our game and our business." I would like for Jesse Jackson and others who claim that there's racial diversity and inclusiveness in professional basketball to make their case. The same question can be asked about professional football where 70% of NFL players are black, and 9% of team head coaches are black. The thornier question and challenge is what can be done to make professional basketball and football look more like the American population?
Most of the diversity and inclusiveness insanity has its roots in academia. An example is a paper titled "Equilibrium Grade Inflation with Implications for Female Interest in STEM Majors," written by Naval Postgraduate School professor Thomas Ahn, Duke University economics professor Peter Arcidiacono, Duke University researcher Amy Hopson, and James R. Thomas of the Federal Trade Commission. The authors argue that science, technology, engineering and mathematics programs at colleges and universities lacking female enrollment can be attributed largely to harsh grading policies in these fields. Their solution to increase the number of women's involvement in STEM is to standardize grading curves, in order to grade less "harshly." The insanity of this approach is to not only weaken standards for women but to weaken standards across the board. This is more evidence that George Orwell was absolutely right when he said, "There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."
There’s almost Zero diversity at running back and cornerback and other starting positions in the NFL.
In fact, 15 percent of the population makes up probably 90 percent or more of starters.
And what about fat cornerbacks?
And there is HUGH age discrimination
I want my shot as a fat white, middle aged cornerback in the NFL :)
“The authors argue that science, technology, engineering and mathematics programs at colleges and universities lacking female enrollment can be attributed largely to harsh grading policies in these fields. Their solution to increase the number of women’s involvement in STEM is to standardize grading curves, in order to grade less “harshly.” The insanity of this approach is to not only weaken standards for women but to weaken standards across the board.”
This is to prop up a diverse pseudo-economy; in my experience, no matter who the window-dressing token is, there are real workers behind the scenes doing the real work. The key is to get those jobs, and make as much as possible. I’ve worked for “diverse” bosses before (a few good ones, mostly tokens) and with the latter have never experienced such job security.
Employers are simply forced to pay a “diversity tax”, and put a certain percentage of unqualified people on the payroll at salaries that will keep the government at bay - or they simply re-locate.
The entire “Diversity is Our Strength” crap is a scam. For what? Tacos? The reality is foreigners who don’t assimilate are not “immigrants” and they never become “Americans”. Nobody talks about “French Americans” or “Finnish Americans” and nobody has any idea how many Latvian AMericans there are. The only groups who “generate data”, as in “90% of Guatemalan Americans hate Trump” do so because they HAVEN’T assimilated.
Ah, we still use it on the east coast because some of us only go back a couple of generations.
But it’s semantics only.
Italian American really mean an American of Italian descent.
And honest, I’m 2nd generation and my nephews and nieces may as well be WASPs
My grandnephews and nieces won’t even know what a Tarantella is :(
But that’s good. It’s as it should be.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Exactly. If you want to come here, assimilate. Otherwise, go back. When I was a kid I could never figure out why my grandpa was always so proud for being “German American” even though our family had been here for at least ten generations and no one spoke German for at least 5 that I know for a fact. HE couldn’t speak German.
Well I still speak Italian and don’t plan on stopping :)
None of my nephews and nieces do.
But it’s obviously my second language and it’s too ridiculous to even ask where my loyalty lies.
There’s a place in my heart for Italy but it’s another country, it’s not mine.
Notice I purposefully left out “Italian” and a couple others. I think these represent something different. 100 years ago my grandpa had the example of his Granpa the Civil War vet who probably enjoyed his membership in the “Grand Army of the Republic”. Remember, a century ago AMerica had NO “social network” other than that provided by “Lodge Membership”. So, for me, those groups of a century ago like the “German AMerican” and “Italian American” association of a century ago represent a different phenomenon. They weren’t trying to be “Italian AMericans” to the exclusion of their “American” identification but in addition to it out of necessity.
Back then when a “lodge brother” needed help folks pitched in, I believe. Unfortunately, the “Italian AMerican” groups eventually became mob groups maybe because so many families “asssiilated” and they lost their legit purpose.
Must read latrr. Bmrk
My grandpa and I, to some extent, have some “romantic association” that is weirdly emotional or something for Germany, as well. I used to wish I could go to the old family home area of Karlsruhe (according to grandpa) and just walk around for a while. Why, I have no idea. The King of France drove our family out of there centuries ago. I’m sure the place is a foreign as Antarctica now to them.
It might be a cool trip :)
Those hyphenated Americans used to publish newspapers and booklets explaining American norms and encouraging assimilation. I found Norwegian language publications like this among family heirlooms, and I’ve seen the same kind of publications in Yiddish.
Different world among today’s immigrants.
This right here, is our strength. How many of our new, “diversity immigrants” would go to war against their birth country if called upon?
I’m laughing too hard trying to picture Italy with a military worth going to war against.. :)
But if I could imagine such a thing and they were hostile to us, yeah of course it’s not even a question of which side I’d take.
It’s laughable that myself or any friends of 2nd generation would even need to think for a 1/1000th of a second.
I spent a lot of time in Germany, although I have no German ancestry. I learned to speak German pretty well and met a lot of good people. One family had the name Rotrock in their history. It was the wife’s family name and in their home town there was only one Rotrock left; her uncle who spent all his time showing all the Rotrocks from the US around.
One ancestor long ago had 3 wives and 21 sons. No American Rotrocks spoke any German. That’s assimilation.
And that’s a shame.
Knowing a second language is a great thing
Learning another language is a great eye-opening thing. It’s one thing Europeans best us at. Americans do not think about language any more than a fish thinks about water. A language is also the software we use when thinking.
What they ought to do is toughen the grading standards for other areas of study. Problem solved.
I think universities should, in the interest of transparency and disclosure, identify which aspects of the university are based on merit and which are based on diversity. Is the athletic department leaders based on merit or diversity? What about the football and basketball teams and other sports teams? Is admissions based on diversity or merit? What about the dance team or cheer leaders? What about honorary societies and full ride scholarships? Does the administration pick and choose these aspects of the university?
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.