Archive for the ‘Affirmative Action’ Category
Earlier this year, the University of Wisconsin–Madison faculty senate adopted a new Framework for Diversity and Inclusive Excellence, which, according to the campus’s Board of Regents, “places the mission of diversity at the center of institutional life so that it becomes a core organizing principle.” Nothing new under the sun there.
But UW economics professor W. Lee Hansen notes something profoundly disturbing in the framework, which apparently went unnoticed by the faculty and the administration:
To achieve the plan’s vague aims, the Ad Hoc Diversity Planning Committee formulated five goals and thirty detailed recommendations. Unbeknownst to faculty senators, these goals and recommendations are based on the “Inclusive Excellence” framework adopted earlier by the Board of Regents. (See Agenda Item II.6 for the March 5, 2009, meeting of the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents.)
That framework includes eight essential “working definitions,” among them the already-discussed diversity, as well as others: “compositional diversity,” “critical mass,” “inclusion,” “equity mindedness,” “deficit-mindedness,” “representational equity,” and “excellence.”
Let us take a closer look at one of these working definitions included, namely “representational equity.”
It calls for “proportional participation of historically underrepresented racial-ethnic groups at all levels of an institution, including high status special programs, high-demand majors, and in the distribution of grades.”
Political correctness has for some time mandated that everyone get an A, so it was only a matter of time before the coercive forces seeking “Diversity and Inclusive Excellence” rendered grades utterly meaningless. But to commandeer grades as a vehicle for reparations? That level of brainlessness deserves an F — no matter what color you are.
Members of a radical leftist group at the University of Minnesota have demanded that the school confess that it “exists as a product of” colonial evil and must therefore “fundamentally” restructure to conform to their organizing principles.
The leftist group opposes “color-blind racism” and demands “an acknowledgement that the university exists as a product of colonialistic processes,” according to Campus Reform.
The underground group also wants the taxpayer-funded school in the Twin Cities to require that every student, regardless of major, take a class covering “gender non-conforming issues.” Members want “substantially more” courses about “marginalized peoples,” too.
College graduation is a special time in America, and it’s even more special this year if you are gay.
A number of public colleges and universities gave special recognition this year to graduating seniors who amazingly managed to complete their degrees while suffering the grueling hardship of being lesbians and homosexuals, reports Campus Reform.
Administrators at these taxpayer-funded institutions allowed gay students attend this year’s commencement ceremonies donning caps and gowns with special honor cords.
Straight students do not appear to have been given the option of having special tassels.
The University of Missouri-Columbia hosted a separate – but equal! – “lavender graduation” for gay students.
As out of control as the illegal immigration is now, it’s only going to get worse as the election nears. Obama has thrown open the borders to these undocumented Democrats. He calls his future voters “DREAMERS.” Their dream, our nightmare.
Another problem for U.S. citizens: all these “DREAMERS” are going to be eligible for affirmative action, even though they’ve enjoyed more rights and benefits than Americans from the moment they first broke the law by sneaking into this country. But the Beautiful People still sneer at any Americans who question this new reverse Jim Crow so beloved by the elites.
At the Herald debate the other day, a female Suffolk student asked the Democratic candidates for governor if it was time to reconsider the disadvantages that white students face under “affirmative action.”
Juliette “Let them eat Cake” Kayyem, a blow-in from Beverly Hills who was born with not one but two silver spoons in her mouth, was deeply offended that a middle-class student would challenge the PC orthodoxy.
Juliette went to Harvard Law and got a Globe column (it goes along with being a carpetbagger). Her husband is an Obama-appointed federal judge. She haughtily described herself as someone “who understands what diversity means.”
I’ll tell you what diversity means. It means someone else, further down the socioeconomic ladder, pays the price to assuage your white guilt, while you go to Harvard Law and lecture the rest of us.
Public universities in California are barred from using race as a factor in admitting students, but a UCLA professor who once served on its admissions oversight team says he has proof they do it anyway.
While the first round of admissions consideration is handled fairly, African-American students are nearly three times as likely to make it out of the “maybe” pile than equally-qualified white students, and more than twice as likely as Asians, according to Tim Groseclose, a political science professor at the school and author of a new book titled, “Cheating: An Insider’s Report on the Use of Race in Admissions at UCLA.”
“UCLA is using racial preferences in admissions,” Groseclose, who made his case using data from 2006-2009, told FoxNews.com.
After a first look results in most applications being either accepted or rejected, a handful of senior university staff sift through those marked for further consideration, according to Groseclose. That’s where the alleged bias happens. He found black applicants were accepted at a 43 percent rate in the second round, while whites were accepted at a 15 percent rate and Asians at an 18 percent rate.
“All of the cheating was done by the senior staff,” Groseclose said.
As much as I appreciate liberals’ concern for the welfare and success of black Americans, we are not hobbling around with crippled feet. We’re smart, capable, and successful. Yes, we need opportunities, just like every American! But opportunity and racial preferences are not the same thing.
Opportunity gives a chance to a qualified, capable individual. Preference grants someone favor. I am grateful for every opportunity I have been afforded in my life, but I don’t need to be coddled as if I am unable to succeed without special attention. Just look at Kwasi Enin, an African American high school student with a whopping 5.0 GPA who got accepted into every Ivy League college – a feat only achieved by few.
As black students, being treated as a special class of citizens is the worse thing that could happen, because we will not be held to the same standards as our white peers. The most relevant example is the ‘I,Too’ movement happening at different universities, in which minority students write down racial experiences they have had, whether negative or positive, as a response to the lack of diversity at their school. Many of their experiences had to do with, unsurprisingly, other students thinking that they were affirmative action placements. They felt demeaned and underestimated, two of the worst feelings in the world, yet they would just as readily fight for the very thing that undermines them.
How can we truly move toward racial equality if we are treated as less than capable?
In a 6-to-2 decision in Shuette v. BAMN, the Supreme Court upheld a new provision in the Michigan Constitution that bars state agencies from using racial preferences (i.e., affirmative action) when making state decisions, including colleges admissions at schools such as the University of Michigan.
The justices split between several opinions, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the lead opinion for three justices. In doing so, a majority of the Court narrowed the reach of two racial preference cases from 1969 and 1982 that have long been criticized by conservative legal scholars.
Teachers begged city officials to investigate “School of No” Principal Marcella Sills soon after she started in 2005 — citing her constant tardiness, harassment of staff and extravagant spending on parties while the school lacked books, pencils and paper.
“Get rid of her before it’s too late,” a 2007 letter urged District 27 Superintendent Michelle Lloyd-Bey, who oversees Queens principals.
Letters describe Sills as a tyrant and “rude lunatic administrator” who spurred an exodus of excellent teachers and failed to provide basic student supplies and services while handsomely furnishing her own office and squandering funds on catering and decorations.
Now the question is – Why? Because she’s black? Or what does she have on leadership, which could be so volatile that it elicits silence from authorities? Even after the family of a girl filed a $2 million dollar negligence suit against her, the sound of crickets was heard all the way to Bloomberg’s office. Amazing in its scope of blatant ignorance of her performance.
The 234 kids get no gym or art classes. Instead, they watch movies every day.
“The kids have seen more movies than Siskel and Ebert,” a source said.
And the principal — Marcella Sills, who joined PS 106 nine years ago — is a frequent no-show, sources say.
On Wednesday, The Post found her at home in Westbury, LI, all day before emerging at 2:50 p.m. — school dismissal time. Wearing a fur coat, she took her BMW for a spin.
She showed up at school Thursday, but not Friday.
When Sills, 48, does go to work, it’s rarely before 11 a.m. — and often hours later, say sources familiar with her schedule.
“She strolls in whenever she wants,” one said.
The school hasn’t had a payroll secretary in years.
A Department of Education spokesman said Sills was required to report her absences and tardiness to District 27 Superintendent Michelle Lloyd-Bey but would not say whether Sills did so last week.
The Supreme Court ventured into the fractious debate over affirmative action Tuesday, hearing a challenge to a statewide ban Michigan voters imposed in 2006 on consideration of race or gender in public education, employment or contracting.
The fate of the measure appeared to be in the hands of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who suggested at the outset of the argument that the Michigan constitutional amendment was clearly invalid under a three-decade-old Supreme Court precedent.“I have difficulty distinguishing” between Michigan’s ban and a Washington state ban on racial busing that the court struck down in 1982, Kennedy said.However, later in the afternoon, Kennedy seemed troubled by the implications of the rule the court adopted in that case and appeared concerned that it swept so broadly as to be unwise or unworkable.A ruling upholding the Michigan constitutional amendment is unlikely to end all affirmative action programs, but it could lay out a road map for those looking to end those programs in individual states.
Major universities and civil rights groups have supported the legal battle against the Michigan measure, approved by voters in 2006, 58 percent to 32 percent.