"Diversity" in the world of Academe, means basically one thing: Diversity of color/ethnicity - EXCEPT for ASIAN. Diversity of thought or philosophy? Not so much.
The Diversity Mafia promotes women, "Black" people, Hispanics, the Sexually Irregular, and other ethnic oddities. They demand that those groups be hired, promoted, showcased, and published. They PRESUME that any discrepancy between the groups' presence in the general population and on the staff is the result of some sort of insidious - if not illegal - discrimination.
If the Division I basketball team is 90% "Black," that is a case of merit; if the Electrical Engineering department is 95% white (including Indian and Asian) male, that is presumed to be a clear case of discrimination against women, "Blacks," and Hispanics.
There is no question that for the past ten years and to a greater and greater extent, the quest for "Diversity" trumps the principles of meritocracy. In fact, despite NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of discrimination per se against any of the aforementioned groups in university settings, most universities have so much full-time staff and so much management attention devoted to the eradication of discrimination against them that one would suppose that Colleges and Universities have a long, shameful history of discrimination that must quickly and emphatically be remedied...which is the opposite of reality.
So the question is this: What are the BENEFITS of "diversity"? Is this campaign worth the financial cost?
Do the students learn more about the subject matter if the faculty and staff are "diverse"? Where is the data that supports that proposition? Is the faculty more cohesive? More productive? How?
More to the point, what if the Colleges and Universities reverted to doing their hiring and promotion purely on the basis of objective merit? Even if that meant that "Black" people would seldom be hired or promoted, or the STEM departments would shift even more prevalently to white male dominance?
Which college would you want to send your children to? Diversity U or Merit U?
The Diversity Mafia promotes women, "Black" people, Hispanics, the Sexually Irregular, and other ethnic oddities. They demand that those groups be hired, promoted, showcased, and published. They PRESUME that any discrepancy between the groups' presence in the general population and on the staff is the result of some sort of insidious - if not illegal - discrimination.
If the Division I basketball team is 90% "Black," that is a case of merit; if the Electrical Engineering department is 95% white (including Indian and Asian) male, that is presumed to be a clear case of discrimination against women, "Blacks," and Hispanics.
There is no question that for the past ten years and to a greater and greater extent, the quest for "Diversity" trumps the principles of meritocracy. In fact, despite NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of discrimination per se against any of the aforementioned groups in university settings, most universities have so much full-time staff and so much management attention devoted to the eradication of discrimination against them that one would suppose that Colleges and Universities have a long, shameful history of discrimination that must quickly and emphatically be remedied...which is the opposite of reality.
So the question is this: What are the BENEFITS of "diversity"? Is this campaign worth the financial cost?
Do the students learn more about the subject matter if the faculty and staff are "diverse"? Where is the data that supports that proposition? Is the faculty more cohesive? More productive? How?
More to the point, what if the Colleges and Universities reverted to doing their hiring and promotion purely on the basis of objective merit? Even if that meant that "Black" people would seldom be hired or promoted, or the STEM departments would shift even more prevalently to white male dominance?
Which college would you want to send your children to? Diversity U or Merit U?
