| |
| ▲ | ModernMech 4 days ago | parent [-] | | There are many paths to college, and they require neither membership in nor adherence to ideals professed by the Democratic party. College campuses across America have people from every demographic axis - every race, religion, ethnicity, country, socioeconomic status, etc. Amongst them frequently are conservatives and white men. This is because the gate universities keep is based on merit, not ideology. Indeed, many Republican congresspeople were accepted into and graduated from prestigious ostensibly "Democrat controlled" institutions, despite their conservative beliefs. | | |
| ▲ | rahimnathwani 4 days ago | parent [-] | | This is because the gate universities keep is based on merit, not ideology.
Many US universities have required prospective employees to demonstrate their adherence to preferred ideological stances, during processes for hiring and promotion.This is widely documented: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/fire-statement-use-di... I have read information about these mandatory statements on official web sites of universities themselves, so I know the issue isn't a fabrication. Separately, SCOTUS found in both SFFA vs. Harvard and SFFA vs. UNC, that these universities did not admit students based solely on merit, but also discriminated against some individual students due to their race. Amongst them frequently are conservatives and white men.
Funny you should say that. A few days ago, a conservative white man filed a complaint against Cornell. He alleges (supported by written evidence) that Cornell deliberately set out to hire a non-white person for a particular role, and did so by making a shortlist of candidates without even advertising the role. More details here:https://www.wsj.com/opinion/cornell-university-discriminated... | | |
| ▲ | ModernMech 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Many US universities have required prospective employees to demonstrate their adherence to preferred ideological stances, during processes for hiring and promotion That does not mean the Democrats control hiring decisions at universities. This would be like saying the Republican party controls CFO hiring decisions because corporations might filter for people who are fiscally conservative. All organizations look for "culture fit" when making hiring decisions, and the culture of a university is one that is typically open and accepting of people from all walks of life. It's counterproductive to hire who think "empathy is a fundamental weakness" for example. They don't fit well with fostering a welcoming educational environment for young people, so typically we look for some degree of empathy in candidates, people who want to build community, foster individuals, and yes, who value diversity. Notably, this filter is not very good at preventing conservatives from being hired and promoted and admitted to universities, because that happens every day. > but also discriminated against some individual students due to their race. This thread is about Democrats ostensibly controlling schools. That some schools were found by a court to racially discriminate in their admitting practices is unrelated, nor does not show affiliation to the Democratic party was used as a filter for hiring or admit decisions. > a conservative white man filed a complaint against Cornell. Well, no. From the link you provided: I’m an evolutionary biologist, a liberal
Anyway, diversity statements were never about being a political litmus test. Diverse hiring pools are not a white filter. These are just something butthurt people say when they get an outcome they don't like. This seems more a case of a failed scientist being rejected for a tenure track role and blaming discrimination instead of his middling research agenda. | | |
| ▲ | rahimnathwani 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You said this in an earlier comment: There are many paths to college, and they require neither membership in nor adherence to ideals professed by the Democratic party.
I have examples to show why I believe that to be incorrect.I'm not saying that people have had to show adherence to (or loyalty to) the Democratic Party. But they have had to show support for positions and ideologies that are part of the Democratic Party's platform. In your last paragraph, you dismiss Colin's complaint, without acknowledging the wrongness of the process that I outlined. Instead of seeking the best person for the job, the school made a list of people using race as one of the filtering criteria, and went down the last until someone accepted the job. The fact you didn't engage with the major point I made here suggests you're more interested in winning an argument, than in furthering your or my understanding of the truth. I am not interested in trying to win an argument. Your replies are not helping me to develop my thinking. So this will be my last reply. Have a great day! | | |
| ▲ | ModernMech 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > But they have had to show support for positions and ideologies that are part of the Democratic Party's platform. Even if we just agree that's what's happening here, the overlap of ideology doesn't imply control over the institution or process by the party, because you haven't shown any causality. What's to say university policy isn't influencing the Democratic party's platform? Anyway, that's not what's happening. People qualified for these positions have no problem answering those questions and getting accepted to these institutions despite any conservative political leanings. The evidence for this is that conservatives are well represented on campuses across America. They're not a ideological filter placed there by the Democratic party to keep conservatives out of college. They're a tool that colleges came up with on their own to help with culture fit. > In your last paragraph, you dismiss Colin's complaint, without acknowledging the wrongness of the process that I outlined. Because you're both misrepresented what's going on. He's doing it because he's upset they didn't hire him. Your opinion is on the basis of what he said, so I don't know what else to add except to wait for the verdict. Either way he's wasn't rejected on the basis of his conservative beliefs. > Have a great day! Same. |
| |
| ▲ | retinaros 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Anyway, diversity statements were never about being a political litmus test. Diverse hiring pools are not a white filter. These are just something butthurt people say when they get an outcome they don't like. This seems more a case of a failed scientist being rejected for a tenure track role and blaming discrimination instead of his middling research agenda. hence why Asian community sued multiple universities for discrimination. | | |
| ▲ | ModernMech 2 days ago | parent [-] | | No, those lawsuits were about affirmative action in student admissions, not faculty hiring. |
|
|
|
|
|
