Lack of Diversity of Another Sort

[Annie]

Links and more at site:

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/02/ucla_faculty_di.html

[...]

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with this book, since Prop 209 presumably bars me from making use of such data in voting on hiring decisions. In any case, I note that there is no data on forms of diversity other than race and gender, such as intellectual or political diversity. No surprise there. My guess is that the highest underutilization number would be for pro-life female Republicans of all ethnicities.

I base this estimate on one of the most famous unpublished studies of the legal academy. As the Yale Daily News reported back in 1996, for example:

"The basic argument for diversity in faculty hiring is incoherent unless there is more hiring of white Republicans and Christians because they are the two groups more underrepresented than women and most minorities," [Northwestern law professor and Volokh Conspirator James] Lindgren said.

Lindgren confined his remarks to the hiring of professors and justified his claims on the basis of a study he conducted which breaks law professors down according to political affiliations, religion, gender, and race.

Although Lindgren's study was distributed to students upon entrance into the lecture hall of Room 127 in the Sterling Law buildings, the figures are not for publication...

 

[MoltenLava]

I'm not sure what this person (presumably a white, male Christian) is moaning about.

And just to answer the question you have in your heading, no, I haven't forgotten. Why would you ask?

And I also haven't forgotten that more people have been slaughtered in the name of Jesus than in anyone else's.

 

[5stringJeff]

And I also haven't forgotten that more people have been slaughtered in the name of Jesus than in anyone else's.

Actually, more people have been slaughtered in the name of state-sponsered atheism than any other. Nice try though.

 

[Annie]

I'm not sure what this person (presumably a white, male Christian) is moaning about.

And just to answer the question you have in your heading, no, I haven't forgotten. Why would you ask?

And I also haven't forgotten that more people have been slaughtered in the name of Jesus than in anyone else's.

Might help if you read the link. As for the later part of your post, wouldn't be so sure.

 

[MoltenLava]

Actually, more people have been slaughtered in the name of state-sponsered atheism than any other. Nice try though.

Oooh... he shoots.... and misses by a country mile. Nice try though. Does making up facts usually work in other areas of your life?

Shoulda taken Kathieanne's tack and just not dealt with the statement at all, and accepted it for the undisputed truth that it is.

 

[Avatar4321]

Oooh... he shoots.... and misses by a country mile. Nice try though. Does making up facts usually work in other areas of your life?

Shoulda taken Kathieanne's tack and just not dealt with the statement at all, and accepted it for the undisputed truth that it is.

We are obviously dealing with a master of facts. Care to put your money where your mouth is? Back up how many people have been slaughtered in the name of Jesus. Trust me it aint nearly the amount that have been killed by athiest idealogies.

 

[Annie]

Oooh... he shoots.... and misses by a country mile. Nice try though. Does making up facts usually work in other areas of your life?

Shoulda taken Kathieanne's tack and just not dealt with the statement at all, and accepted it for the undisputed truth that it is.

Unable to copy a name? Poor baby. How about some links for your proposition?

 

[5stringJeff]

Oooh... he shoots.... and misses by a country mile. Nice try though. Does making up facts usually work in other areas of your life?

Shoulda taken Kathieanne's tack and just not dealt with the statement at all, and accepted it for the undisputed truth that it is.

Great rebuttal... with absolutely no supporting evidence. Is that you, Dan Rather?

 

[Gem]

Oh comeon, guys. Don't pick on him too much...I am sure that I am not the only one having an absolute BLAST reading all of his nonsense, especially after he started with this:

when the argument is thoughtful, well researched, considerate of another's posters feelings, and completely lacking in verbal attacks and childish name-calling, inevitably that person is a liberal.

 

[Hobbit]

when the argument is thoughtful, well researched, considerate of another's posters feelings, and completely lacking in verbal attacks and childish name-calling, inevitably that person is a liberal.

If by "a liberal," it means, "not MoltenLava," then yes, that would be correct.