This is how academia keeps out their version of undesirables.
it is not based on the merit of their work. I genuinely don't know if this is illegal, but given what's happened to affirmative action at the Supreme Court, I'd imagine this test is illegal.
There won't be much follow-up to any of this at the Free Press. Things are getting too close to November. Biden and Democrats MUST be elected. Sure the left is insane and demands Stalinish loyalty pledges but Donald Trump said "pussy" in a crowded theater so... no matter what, HE CANNOT WIN.
The implication of all of these DEI policies and rubrics is that prior to this, places like Yale (Yale!) were actively discriminating against sexual and ethic minorities, or that they were unfairly excluding them, on purpose. Otherwise, what are we to make of the insistence that making such people feel included be the primary mission of the University? They also state that applicants must be familiar with the hardships and challenges faced by such populations. But, again, unless those challenges are a direct result of some prior action of the University, why should it be the responsibility of the University to eliminate them? And is that even possible? Again, it seems to me it is possible only if you believe the University imposed those challenges in the first place. Finally, just because some populations, such as gay people, face challenges in certain settings, does that mean they face these challenges everywhere, in every college course? Is it difficult to be gay in a chemistry class for example? These are my thoughts.
It's my understanding that all University of California campuses have similar prioritizing of DEI statements in their hiring and promotion decisions. It's outrageous, dangerous and antithetical to the purpose of a university. Is there any wonder why impressionable graduates act as they do? Thank you for shining a light of this twisted hiring practice. More people need to be aware of it.
This might actually be a good thing. Ivy League institutions have seldom encountered the humility they so desperately need. Their operational models have allowed impractical and often damaging ideas to flourish, resulting in graduates armed with little more than idealistic views, degrees of questionable worth and an inflated sense of readiness for the real world. The grand illusion we perpetuate is that these institutions are indispensable. They are not. If they refuse to uphold the foundational values of Western civilization, they become a burden on society. Observe how quickly their attitudes shift when we start treating them with the same regard as a community college.
I was subjected to the DEI test in 2021--and am now using my terminal degree doing online tutoring for minimum wage and researching/writing on Substack. It's not exactly what I had in mind when I started my PhD with the idea that I would spend my time teaching and writing in a university setting.
The DEI commitments are far more alarming than the protests. I know some will say they are related, but anti war protests are not necesarrily indicative of institutional rot; DEI, however, replaces truth as the goal of an education.
Check the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action: 11 women and 1 man. Diversity is for other people.
This is how academia keeps out their version of undesirables.
it is not based on the merit of their work. I genuinely don't know if this is illegal, but given what's happened to affirmative action at the Supreme Court, I'd imagine this test is illegal.
Such foolishness.
There won't be much follow-up to any of this at the Free Press. Things are getting too close to November. Biden and Democrats MUST be elected. Sure the left is insane and demands Stalinish loyalty pledges but Donald Trump said "pussy" in a crowded theater so... no matter what, HE CANNOT WIN.
Keep it classy Bari Weiss!
The Democratic Party of America, DELENDA EST!
Another reason NOT to apply to Columbia.
The implication of all of these DEI policies and rubrics is that prior to this, places like Yale (Yale!) were actively discriminating against sexual and ethic minorities, or that they were unfairly excluding them, on purpose. Otherwise, what are we to make of the insistence that making such people feel included be the primary mission of the University? They also state that applicants must be familiar with the hardships and challenges faced by such populations. But, again, unless those challenges are a direct result of some prior action of the University, why should it be the responsibility of the University to eliminate them? And is that even possible? Again, it seems to me it is possible only if you believe the University imposed those challenges in the first place. Finally, just because some populations, such as gay people, face challenges in certain settings, does that mean they face these challenges everywhere, in every college course? Is it difficult to be gay in a chemistry class for example? These are my thoughts.
I propose an adendum to the definition of "intellectual", that includes meritocratic acknowledgment.
I'll see your proposal and go you one step better: Include in the definition INTELLIGENT.
Which is code for: We only hire leftists.
It's my understanding that all University of California campuses have similar prioritizing of DEI statements in their hiring and promotion decisions. It's outrageous, dangerous and antithetical to the purpose of a university. Is there any wonder why impressionable graduates act as they do? Thank you for shining a light of this twisted hiring practice. More people need to be aware of it.
Look ,its abundantly clear, you send your child to one of these institutions you now know what they are being taught. Forewarned is Forearmed.
This might actually be a good thing. Ivy League institutions have seldom encountered the humility they so desperately need. Their operational models have allowed impractical and often damaging ideas to flourish, resulting in graduates armed with little more than idealistic views, degrees of questionable worth and an inflated sense of readiness for the real world. The grand illusion we perpetuate is that these institutions are indispensable. They are not. If they refuse to uphold the foundational values of Western civilization, they become a burden on society. Observe how quickly their attitudes shift when we start treating them with the same regard as a community college.
I was subjected to the DEI test in 2021--and am now using my terminal degree doing online tutoring for minimum wage and researching/writing on Substack. It's not exactly what I had in mind when I started my PhD with the idea that I would spend my time teaching and writing in a university setting.
1. Don't send your kid to Columbia (or Harvard or Oberlin or UCLA or Berkley or Yale, yada yada yada).
2. If you want to be a professor at Columbia et al, please move to Canada.
The DEI commitments are far more alarming than the protests. I know some will say they are related, but anti war protests are not necesarrily indicative of institutional rot; DEI, however, replaces truth as the goal of an education.
These were not 'anti-war' protests.
I agree, and it is because of your post that I found out about the Levering oath & its relevance. https://calmatters.org/commentary/2022/08/does-university-of-california-undercut-academic-freedom/