That's the entire problem. Using your standard, there comes a point down the line where "equity," as in present discrimination to remedy past discrimination, is no longer the right thing to, nor is it the just thing to do. Yet, based on your same standards, it's unclear when we would ever back away from equity initiatives. The entire question boils down to "when does 'equity' become wrong and unjust." If the answer is "never" or so unrealistic that it's basically "never," the end result of Socialism or Communism is inevitable. Now, I'm a little more optimistic than that. I think often-times people in politics act impulsively and reactively rather than logically. So, what's more than likely to happen is the public feelings over equity-based policy will eventually become more negative as time passes, eventually the people who call the shots on policy will lick their finger, point it in the air to see which way the political winds are blowing, and suddenly equity will no longer be good anymore. But, that still doesn't address the calculus that needs to be made: "at what point is equity, mandated equality of outcome to remedy historical injustice, wrong or unjust?"
How is that a nonsensical reply? Men and women exist, they've always existed in every society, and there have always been disparities in all sorts of things in all prosperous societies between men and women. If you want to dig your head in the sand, I can't stop you. But I don't know how that could be clearer.
Men and women exist. That’s some truly next level profound stuff. But actually, no your point isn’t particularly clear at all. You just edited a portion of my post and responded with “every society had men and women”. Is this some tangent against transgendered or something? Like I said, nonsensical.
This discussion has become pointless. I really don’t want to bury this thread in an argument about what is equity because obviously liberals and conservatives disagree fundamentally on that. this is about higher Ed in Florida. Or new college. Let’s try not to get too far from that.
Regardless of whether you believe dei based programs are seeking to build equity or are discriminatory against white people (lol) the point I’ve been trying to make for several pages including my last link is that they are not very influential on campus. They are often token programs with little REAL support outside of hashtags and attaboys. It barely impacts the daily functioning of the university except for times of damage control
No. There is race data because libbies are obsessed with the topic and because it is a profitable subject. The data is there because you people won’t stop doing the studies. You could literally do research on anything and show “proof” of a desired outcome. Race is quite the ‘in’ fashion. Libbies are falling over themselves to get the next statue removed, change the history books or create the next pronoun fad because they are rewarded and profit from such research. This is why reasonable people do not trust academia…its run primarily by progressives with motive.
those are two people!!! There are thousands of faculty at Uf. These voices you describe are a very small radical minority. Sure lots of people have read the book but they don’t control the narrative at Uf or most large institutions
You, Mutz and Gatorade and the folks you report to. And then you are the dudes who grow up to write/research more of the same libbie crap that use our tax dollars to publish and brainwash the next generation of young libbies. It’s all in the bubble at many universities.
Just when you think that there might be no hope for die hard Cons.... you get the very proof of it. SMH
It really bothers me when people talk about shit they obviously don’t understand. Only a fraction of a percent of what is written in the extremely broad field of academia is about race. the wonders of our modern world are built off the amazing basic science and research that people do in academia every day. Just because you disagree with one tiny subsection of the social sciences shouldn’t lead you to disregard the other 99% of what comes out of schools.
I want you to honestly think about where my point is coming from. Try it from my pov if possible. Why is it that you could google a subject that works against mainstream liberal ideas, all you get are pages of pro- liberal articles? Why do you think there are few if any articles running contrary to pro-transgenders for example? It’s the same for race articles. Literally all of the internet is filled with the stuff you agree with. it’s because we all know who runs google and what slant the journalists have. It’s known that people in academics are liberal and won’t get grants to research why transgenders might actually not be healthy for stability in families. I wish I was wrong. It’s a snowball and it’s heading in the direction of the libbie ideas and dollars for better or worse.
This has nothing to do with transgender people, even bringing them up like you just did is a tangent. I don't know how I can be clearer than I already was. If you still don't understand, I don't know what to tell you.
OK so another thing in a long line of things you seem to not understand. Google isn't slanted OK? The issue is there are more liberals writing content and more liberals reading that content. Conservatives do not generate as much written content and they don't read as much of it either. So if you run searches for just general topics like transgender, you will get mostly liberal stuff. That being said if I google transgender bad - there is a ton of conservative content. You just have to be smart about how you search and understand how the damn thing works. There are few articles running anti transgender stuff, for example, because LESS PEOPLE WANT TO READ IT. I'm sorry, but this is what it's like to be in a MINORITY. And research studies don't work that way. You don't study WHY SOMETHING IS BAD. That would be bad science - and yes - bad science does happen. What you do is you study something, and then draw conclusions from the results. Your hypothesis is supposed to be free of bias and judgement. So either a, b or c will happen. C happened, now lets interpret that in our discussion section when we present our results. Then the scientific community has a chance to review those results. Regardless - higher education is the BEDROCK of our western democratic capitalist society. It is our greatest export and our greatest advantage. So it is HILARIOUS to me when conservatives poop on it.
You told me what that point is "equality of opportunity." Then you said, "equality of opportunity" is a society where "people with immutable characteristic X are statistically just as likely to be hired or move up an income class as everyone else." In other words, no outcome disparities on the basis of race. Then, you neglected to show a single prosperous society that has ever achieved that outcome. So the point is either vague or completely unrealistic or both. Take your pick.
They happen to be the most famous examples. But as far as those departments go, they are the norm, not the exception.
