The country desperately needs this! Most of those who condemn Putin's aggression are destroying America's ability, high quality of higher education, to fight back against the aggression.
1) Its utilitarian description of what one may do, and how, doesn't give enough analysis, in my view, to addressing "Why?" The short answer is to defend constitutionally protected rights. However, it would be helpful to expand the analysis to the intellectual, academic, and moral conflicts between the potential good of DEI efforts (and rules behind them) and the civil rights rules. Many of us carry both of these around in our minds and cannot resolve them easily, so we don't.
2) When? The essay also should have noted the SCOTUS docket that includes the very relevant cases with UNC-CH and Harvard as defendants. It seems to me that a typical faculty member or college student would choose to wait and see what happens with those.
A minor quibble: the incident at Chicago may be conflating race and color. I'm not sure. It's often hard to know the right words, but the initial invitation was to students of color. It is less a concern to invite one group compared to disallowing participation by a group or groups. If institutions weren't so often skirting the rules, especially lately, thoughtful persons would be less aggrieved by an invitation to one group because they would recognize that it doesn't mean that others are excluded. For example, if a Catholic University sent a high school student recruiting material, and even if the student is not a Catholic, they will look past a statement like "We encourage all Catholics students of high achievement to apply" because they are confident that they will not be excluded if they applied.
Brilliant work!
The country desperately needs this! Most of those who condemn Putin's aggression are destroying America's ability, high quality of higher education, to fight back against the aggression.
This is a useful essay, but I have some concerns.
1) Its utilitarian description of what one may do, and how, doesn't give enough analysis, in my view, to addressing "Why?" The short answer is to defend constitutionally protected rights. However, it would be helpful to expand the analysis to the intellectual, academic, and moral conflicts between the potential good of DEI efforts (and rules behind them) and the civil rights rules. Many of us carry both of these around in our minds and cannot resolve them easily, so we don't.
2) When? The essay also should have noted the SCOTUS docket that includes the very relevant cases with UNC-CH and Harvard as defendants. It seems to me that a typical faculty member or college student would choose to wait and see what happens with those.
A minor quibble: the incident at Chicago may be conflating race and color. I'm not sure. It's often hard to know the right words, but the initial invitation was to students of color. It is less a concern to invite one group compared to disallowing participation by a group or groups. If institutions weren't so often skirting the rules, especially lately, thoughtful persons would be less aggrieved by an invitation to one group because they would recognize that it doesn't mean that others are excluded. For example, if a Catholic University sent a high school student recruiting material, and even if the student is not a Catholic, they will look past a statement like "We encourage all Catholics students of high achievement to apply" because they are confident that they will not be excluded if they applied.