What’s the Opposite of Diversity?

Weatherman2020

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2013
91,636
62,450
2,605
Right coast, classified
University.

Yale Prof Estimates Faculty Political Diversity at ‘0%’; Pressure to join the “herd groupthink” in New Haven.

According to computer science professor David Gelernter ‘76, faculty political diversity at Yale is low: “0%,” he wrote in an email. He added that while there are a “few conservatives, including prominent ones,” their numbers are not high enough to have a significant impact on campus culture.

Readers might assume that Mr. Gelernter, an occasional contributor to the Journal, is poking fun at the school’s overwhelming leftism rather than expressing mathematical precision. But via email, another Yale faculty member who chooses to remain anonymous tells this column, “I agree with the calculation.”

A third Yale faculty member, a self-described liberal, says the faculty is “moving further to the left” and has become increasingly intolerant of conservative viewpoints. This faculty member, who also requests anonymity, says that some faculty bias is subconscious: “They think people who agree with them are smarter than people who disagree with them.” This professor adds: “Universities are moving away from the search for truth” in favor of a search for “social justice.”

This is similar to the critique offered by former Yale Law School dean Anthony Kronman, another liberal who’s been mugged by “progressive” reality. In July this column noted his analysis of how ideology is “killing” important conversations on campus.
 
"Over 50% of the world's refugee are children.⠀⠀
⠀⠀
From those, 2.9 million school-age refugee children live in just 5 countries - Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Uganda, and Sudan. ⠀"
 
University.

.

Aaakkhh! Wrong.

Is Uniformity.

Uniformity is the best for societies when is in reference to maintain each race the purest it can be.

From here, societies can be formed by white race, black race, yellow race.... having that this is a different kind of diversity, which is more agreeable with uniformity in maintaining races untouched the most it can be.

Not mandatory, but surely strongly suggested, uniformity is best for everybody. Mixing of races carries weaker off springs.

The world will always be much better not by losing the race identity because the mixing with other races, but uniting peoples of different races for living together in peace inside societies.
 
Wear a blindfold in a dark room.

Have two equally credentialed physicists, one white, one black, discuss say ... quantum mechanics. Beany and Cecil, bouillabaisse, anything.

You won't know the difference.

Obviously, cultural attitudes and behaviors are the problem.
 
University.

.

Aaakkhh! Wrong.

Is Uniformity.

Uniformity is the best for societies when is in reference to maintain each race the purest it can be.

From here, societies can be formed by white race, black race, yellow race.... having that this is a different kind of diversity, which is more agreeable with uniformity in maintaining races untouched the most it can be.

Not mandatory, but surely strongly suggested, uniformity is best for everybody. Mixing of races carries weaker off springs.

The world will always be much better not by losing the race identity because the mixing with other races, but uniting peoples of different races for living together in peace inside societies.
The world will always be much better not by losing the race identity because the mixing with other races, but uniting peoples of different races for living together in peace inside societies.

And how is that accomplished with universities only providing one view to young impressionable minds?
 
And how is that accomplished with universities only providing one view to young impressionable minds?

Because this is something which must be taught as part of the culture not when they become young adults but since they are children. This is how it was done in the past.

Besides, biology supports it. The Bushmen are people from Africa who live in small societies and get married with people of their own. Many of these groups have their own language. These Bushmen people carry more genetic diversity than peoples from other parts of the world who have mixed themselves with other races in several occasions in history.

This is the desirable genetic diversity. No doubt about it.
 
The more interesting and important question is, "What are the BENEFITS of 'Diversity'?" [Speaking of "Diversity" as it is currently defined in academe].

If a given "white" student is sitting in an accounting class, or a literature class, or a computer programming class, will he learn more if the class is populated by people of different colors, ethnicities, sexual orientations, etc.? Do the supposed benefits of "Diversity" justify lowering admissions standards, compromising grading, watering down course offerings and content, and offering more "remedial" classes in the University?

There is not a single study anywhere that supports these conclusions, and yet it has become BEDROCK education philosophy in our time.

We have seen the enemy and he is us.
 
The answer to your point DGS49, is the no "official" intervention promoting or going against it in classrooms.

The worst mistake by the government in the 60's was taking out the signs "white only" and "colored Only" in public bathrooms, jobs positions and etc, and REPLACING THEM with Affirmative Action.

That was the huge mistake.

The right action was just eliminating the former discrimination, and let society itself to make their own adjustments.

Same as today, education institutions, work places, even government positions (two years ago some dumb liberals were looking for 50/50 men women in congress) must be away when selecting candidates in base of filling vacancies with certain percents of different races or sex.

As long as culture since childhood allows people to learn the acceptance of other peoples as part of society with natural acceptance as you do with the members of your own family, society should be way different today and this word "diversity" in this case shouldn't have never been used.

If today this word is the vedette for several issues in society, is because we have a problem, and the problem exists as long as this word is used as a rule.
 

Forum List

Back
Top