The battle for new college

Well you are just full of nonsensical replies, aren’t you?

 

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.

 

I told you exactly when that point is. So I'm not sure why you're back on this.

 

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.

 

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

 

show me I’m wrong. Please do.

 

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.

 

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.

 

I admire your tenacity in the face of stupidity.

 

They happen to be the most famous examples. But as far as those departments go, they are the norm, not the exception.