The BAF requirement for hiring is still there, right? Such requirements (diversity statements, requirements to reflect on mentoring students from diverse backgrounds, statements on service, broader impact, etc) are introduced to game the system and to allow craven committees to override merit criteria.
Cambridge introduced BAF 15 years ago and still applies it. Employees hired before 2010 seem nominally exempt, and students too. However, note the clause "challenges or reports inappropriate attitudes". That calls for policing of others' beliefs, not just behavior, with a zealous Thought Police to enforce it.
Apparently there is an overwhelming (for some folks) urge to promote and otherwise pander to perceived victim classes of which blacks solidly punch the button for white, guilt ridden academics. Of course, if they happen to be gay or LGBTQ+ then so much the better in their eyes. People who make up the main stream press corp in America and the UK or very academic sorts of people themselves and fall over each other in their efforts to justify, defend, and promote any and all perceived members of the blessed victim classes they've helped create.
“McWhorter deplores the lowering of academic standards. He resents the condescension of liberal whites who think that Blacks deserve lower standards.”
In this otherwise very good piece, *I* resent that you have accepted and replicated the repugnant leftist standard of capitalizing the word “black” when you do not do the same for “white”.
It would be far better had you honored the noted linguist McWhorter’s noncapitalization of the word as shown in the text you cited.
The asymmetry in capitalization is yet another, if no doubt lesser, condescension by leftist (so many are now illiberal I refuse to use the word you do to describe them) whites who think that blacks deserve different standards.
Considers and respects the ideas, circumstances and feelings of others. Treats everyone with fairness and respect, adhering to the principles of diversity and inclusion.
· Promotes an inclusive environment which values equality of opportunity and diversity.
· Role models the highest standards of behaviour.
· Challenges or reports inappropriate attitudes, language and behaviour that is abusive, aggressive or discriminatory.
· Acknowledges and respects a broad range of social and cultural customs, beliefs and values within the law.
· Demonstrates mutual respect tolerance and integrity.
· Listens to and respects others’ views and opinions.
All of these are conduct that the university's diversity apparatus (and its doesn't matter which university for that matter) actively oppose if one dares to criticize a person of color, woman or LGBT person unless of course they are conservative.
Second...in the end such conduct is not only patently racist/sexist and discriminatory against those whose blasphemous speech must be sanctioned...it also very much harms the very populations its seeks to protect. Valid and just criticism (even unjust criticism for that matter) is an important feedback mechanism by which we learn where we are off track and need to do more research, develop our skills or admit we were wrong. Without this feedback, the person does not improve their skills and may in fact lose skills as they focus on the alleged "injustice" of not being lauded as the paragon of virtue and triumphant skill one believes they hold. This is why athletics holds wide public respect unlike academic "achievements". The former are hard to fabricate convincingly. The latter are easily seen for the joke they often are when DEI is in play.
Sadly, I have seen the failure to tell members of "protected" classes the truth about their performance in my own classes and family.
One example occurred in high school where a black woman was not up to the work in the mid level Regents English course she was taking (New York State). The teacher politely suggested that this was NOT the right class for her given her struggles and recommended switching to the non-Regents course which is less rigorous. The girl and her parents instead switched her to the Honors Class where she failed miserably as the work was far above her. No one dared contradict the family out of fear of being accused of racism, so the girl was set up for failure...no doubt not for the first time in her schooling.
Another example occurred in a dental school in the US which I will not name lest if reveal the Tarheel connections. During COVID when face to face clinical activities were suppressed a number of dental students were found not to be ready for practice by the faculty. This was tricky, however, as the modified clinical activities had been completed by the students despite the faculties concerns. Further, all the students in the group of concern were black women. The university devised a FREE multi-month course to bring these students up to speed in their clinical practice before turning them loose on the public. They refused claiming it was racist and threatening lawsuits if they didn't get their degrees immediately. The school backed down. One of these underprepared black women proceeded to kill patients by misusing anasthesia in her first year! This academic cowardice did not help these young women or their patients. Further, when other black women dentists have their credentials questioned, is it really fair to call that evidence of racism...or the truth asserting itself against the racism of a flawed credentialing system. At least Arday's enabling did not lead to any deaths other than his own.
Third...one can understand the faculty of Cambridge not wanting to sacrifice their careers to challenge the DEI bureaucracy. That professional failure, however, must be seen for what it is....proof that the faculty of Cambridge lack integrity and should NOT be seen as credible scholars in their own rights. Their university, like academia in general, loses credibility and must reap the results of its failures. Much as the residents of Dresden who did NOT support Hitler can be sympathized for not wanting to risk their lives to challenge the NAZIS. They cannot then claim to be treated unjustly when the Allied bombs used to remove Hitler fell on all the residents of Germany, pro and anti-NAZI alike.
The BAF requirement for hiring is still there, right? Such requirements (diversity statements, requirements to reflect on mentoring students from diverse backgrounds, statements on service, broader impact, etc) are introduced to game the system and to allow craven committees to override merit criteria.
Cambridge introduced BAF 15 years ago and still applies it. Employees hired before 2010 seem nominally exempt, and students too. However, note the clause "challenges or reports inappropriate attitudes". That calls for policing of others' beliefs, not just behavior, with a zealous Thought Police to enforce it.
Orwellian…
...but with DEI framing in the forced-happy spirit of Brave New World
Required allegiance to dei is indeed a sort of religious test. A very apt comparison! We’re now toeing the line to an odd Christian heresy.
Apparently there is an overwhelming (for some folks) urge to promote and otherwise pander to perceived victim classes of which blacks solidly punch the button for white, guilt ridden academics. Of course, if they happen to be gay or LGBTQ+ then so much the better in their eyes. People who make up the main stream press corp in America and the UK or very academic sorts of people themselves and fall over each other in their efforts to justify, defend, and promote any and all perceived members of the blessed victim classes they've helped create.
“McWhorter deplores the lowering of academic standards. He resents the condescension of liberal whites who think that Blacks deserve lower standards.”
In this otherwise very good piece, *I* resent that you have accepted and replicated the repugnant leftist standard of capitalizing the word “black” when you do not do the same for “white”.
It would be far better had you honored the noted linguist McWhorter’s noncapitalization of the word as shown in the text you cited.
The asymmetry in capitalization is yet another, if no doubt lesser, condescension by leftist (so many are now illiberal I refuse to use the word you do to describe them) whites who think that blacks deserve different standards.
Lots to respond to here.
First...the "Diversity requirement" restated:
Considers and respects the ideas, circumstances and feelings of others. Treats everyone with fairness and respect, adhering to the principles of diversity and inclusion.
· Promotes an inclusive environment which values equality of opportunity and diversity.
· Role models the highest standards of behaviour.
· Challenges or reports inappropriate attitudes, language and behaviour that is abusive, aggressive or discriminatory.
· Acknowledges and respects a broad range of social and cultural customs, beliefs and values within the law.
· Demonstrates mutual respect tolerance and integrity.
· Listens to and respects others’ views and opinions.
All of these are conduct that the university's diversity apparatus (and its doesn't matter which university for that matter) actively oppose if one dares to criticize a person of color, woman or LGBT person unless of course they are conservative.
Second...in the end such conduct is not only patently racist/sexist and discriminatory against those whose blasphemous speech must be sanctioned...it also very much harms the very populations its seeks to protect. Valid and just criticism (even unjust criticism for that matter) is an important feedback mechanism by which we learn where we are off track and need to do more research, develop our skills or admit we were wrong. Without this feedback, the person does not improve their skills and may in fact lose skills as they focus on the alleged "injustice" of not being lauded as the paragon of virtue and triumphant skill one believes they hold. This is why athletics holds wide public respect unlike academic "achievements". The former are hard to fabricate convincingly. The latter are easily seen for the joke they often are when DEI is in play.
Sadly, I have seen the failure to tell members of "protected" classes the truth about their performance in my own classes and family.
One example occurred in high school where a black woman was not up to the work in the mid level Regents English course she was taking (New York State). The teacher politely suggested that this was NOT the right class for her given her struggles and recommended switching to the non-Regents course which is less rigorous. The girl and her parents instead switched her to the Honors Class where she failed miserably as the work was far above her. No one dared contradict the family out of fear of being accused of racism, so the girl was set up for failure...no doubt not for the first time in her schooling.
Another example occurred in a dental school in the US which I will not name lest if reveal the Tarheel connections. During COVID when face to face clinical activities were suppressed a number of dental students were found not to be ready for practice by the faculty. This was tricky, however, as the modified clinical activities had been completed by the students despite the faculties concerns. Further, all the students in the group of concern were black women. The university devised a FREE multi-month course to bring these students up to speed in their clinical practice before turning them loose on the public. They refused claiming it was racist and threatening lawsuits if they didn't get their degrees immediately. The school backed down. One of these underprepared black women proceeded to kill patients by misusing anasthesia in her first year! This academic cowardice did not help these young women or their patients. Further, when other black women dentists have their credentials questioned, is it really fair to call that evidence of racism...or the truth asserting itself against the racism of a flawed credentialing system. At least Arday's enabling did not lead to any deaths other than his own.
Third...one can understand the faculty of Cambridge not wanting to sacrifice their careers to challenge the DEI bureaucracy. That professional failure, however, must be seen for what it is....proof that the faculty of Cambridge lack integrity and should NOT be seen as credible scholars in their own rights. Their university, like academia in general, loses credibility and must reap the results of its failures. Much as the residents of Dresden who did NOT support Hitler can be sympathized for not wanting to risk their lives to challenge the NAZIS. They cannot then claim to be treated unjustly when the Allied bombs used to remove Hitler fell on all the residents of Germany, pro and anti-NAZI alike.
Thanks for sharing.
The Valuing Diversity BAF here is a shining example of our beloved Reverse Motte and Bailey Trojan Horse in action.