View Full Version : Diversity for diversity sake
frostfire
06-17-2016, 03:24
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/the-daunting-struggle-to-diversify-elite-public-high-schools/
I'm friggin sick and tired by "sanctioned-racism" article like this one.. :mad:
I get good at my chosen lifetime discipline by hours and years of practice, dedication, and investment of time, finances, and effort...not by flaunting diversity.
I understand the unique learning experience that diversity brings. However, when certain groups excel more than other because they work their butt off day and night, the guilt-tripping over "not diverse enough" is simply backward thinking.
What your take on this as an educator, Richard?
I will not celebrate diversity, we should be looked at by who we are not what we are.
This isn't diversity, this is simple racism, entitlement, and fostering of the victim mentality. At Lowell for example over 2/3 of the student body consists of minority students. So if you are lucky enough to get into a school like this and scoff at having to hang out with a bunch of minorities other than your own, look to yourself and lose the entitlement and professional victim mindset before you blow an incredible opportunity.
Diversity is just the opposite, it's people of different temperaments, talents, and convictions with ancestors from all parts of the globe coming together to become Americans in a country where you have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness based on your merits and work ethic. It's one of the things that made America exceptional and great.
Surf n Turf
06-17-2016, 19:40
Diversity is just the opposite, it's people of different temperaments, talents, and convictions with ancestors from all parts of the globe coming together to become Americans in a country where you have the rights made America exceptional and great.
akv,
Your comment on diversity above has piqued my interest..In Europe this was called Multi-cultural, (or Multi-Kulti for short) I guess first off I would like to know what you consider exceptional and great.... With USA International rankings of 35th place for Math, and 27th Place for Science (2012) it appears that our education is falling short, or students are incapable of grasping the subject matter in STEM studies.
I still believe America has plenty of other areas of exceptionalism and greatness, but I'm at a loss to put that into the same rubric as diversity (Multiculturalism). I think that “Life is an IQ test"
Is it always true that when people of different temperaments, talents, and convictions, with ancestors from all parts of the globe coming together brings exceptionalism and greatness, OR does this only happen in America.?
Do not positive cultural norms and intelligence enhance exceptionalism, and aren't there cultures where the persistence in maladaptive behavior spans centuries and appears impervious to societal efforts at remedy. Wouldn't bringing these cultures into the mix have a negative impact on the exceptionalism and greatness ?.
What about cultural differences in work ethic, in temperament, and convictions. Wouldn't these traits play some role in expressions of exceptionalism and greatness ?.
In 2010, Germanys Attempts to build a multicultural society in Germany have "utterly failed", Chancellor Angela Merkel said.
She said the so-called "multikulti" concept - where people would "live side-by-side" happily - did not work, and immigrants needed to do more to integrate - including learning German.
The debate first heated up in August when Thilo Sarrazin, a senior official at Germany's central bank, said that "no immigrant group other than Muslims is so strongly connected with claims on the welfare state and crime". Mr Sarrazin has since resigned.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11559451
The editors of Time may have been startled by Merkel’s speech on December 14, 2015 in which she said that multiculturalism “leads to parallel societies and remains a sham... We want and we will reduce the number of refugees noticeably.” Yet, they should not have been surprised since in a speech in October 2010 Merkel had said that multiculturalism had failed utterly. Newcomers, she said, should assimilate to German values and culture, and respect the country’s laws.
Chancellor Merkel joined European and other leaders, notably British Prime Minister David Cameron, French former president Nicolas Sarkozy, former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and former Australian Prime Minister John Howard in this assertion that multiculturalism has been a mistake. All agree that in their countries different cultural communities have been encouraged to live separate lives. Those separate communities have behaved in ways that run counter to British, German, and French values.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/israel_and_the_problem_of_multiculturalism.html
Diversity of thought is the only form of diversity I subscribe to, specifically related to problem solving.
Otherwise, diversity is a George Carlin four letter word.
Team Sergeant
06-17-2016, 22:44
I'm all for it!!!
Surf n Turf,
It's a good question. America is blessed with great geography, resources, and a constitution designed to protect freedoms without peer in history. All three led to the industrial, and military might which led us to superpower status. Yes, we could blow it, poor leadership, soaring debt, and a sense of entitlement has ended other historic powers.
To me what makes us exceptional is anyone can come here and become accepted as an American. I think some keys to this are you have to be willing to assimilate, learn English, and be a good citizen since all of us have ancestry abroad at some point. This is unique to America. Europe is not like this, even if someone is fluent, native born they are not considered a Frenchman or easily labeled an " Auslander" in Germany. A homogeneous society is thus much more vulnerable to the trap of multiculturalism.
The net result of this is a culture of the freedom to excel which incents the best and brightest both domestically and from abroad. Yes, our schools have challenges, but there still isn't another place in the world even close on the scale of innovation, creativity, and technology as America.
One anecdote is IIT, the best technology college in India. The top students from an English speaking Democratic population that size
are as a rule brilliant. They lose this talent to Silicon Valley at an alarming rate. They come for the same opportunity European immigrants came before, the freedom to succeed and also be accepted. Their kids can get elected to high office or even become president.
This freedom and opportunity exists only in America and makes us exceptional. The cited article is about entitlement not diversity. Diversity only broadens the talent pool.
Surf n Turf
06-20-2016, 17:43
To me what makes us exceptional is anyone can come here and become accepted as an American. I think some keys to this are you have to be willing to assimilate, learn English, and be a good citizen since all of us have ancestry abroad at some point. This is unique to America. Europe is not like this, even if someone is fluent, native born they are not considered a Frenchman or easily labeled an " Auslander" in Germany. A homogeneous society is thus much more vulnerable to the trap of multiculturalism.
The net result of this is a culture of the freedom to excel which incents the best and brightest both domestically and from abroad. Yes, our schools have challenges, but there still isn't another place in the world even close on the scale of innovation, creativity, and technology as America.
akv,
My intention is not to beat up on anyone, or to show America in a bad light, just want to present some sobering facts. :)
SnT
You must have missed my comment about our world standing in Education, with International rankings of 35th place for Math, and 27th Place for Science (2012).
https://edsource.org/2013/u-s-scores-stagnant-other-nations-pass-by-in-latest-international-comparison/52052
Next, let us separate Education from innovation, creativity, and Technology.
American Education today is a shadow of what it was as late as 1980. Test scores have fallen every year since .
•In 2014, the average score on the SAT verbal test was near a historic lows at 497 (slightly above the lowest mean scores of 496 recorded in 2012 and 2013)
•The mean score for the relatively new SAT writing test scores hit its lowest point in 2014. In the eight years since the test was first administered in 2006, the score has declined ten points.
http://www.humanitiesindicators.org/content/indicatordoc.aspx?i=23
One anecdote is IIT, the best technology college in India. The top students from an English speaking Democratic population that size are as a rule brilliant. They lose this talent to Silicon Valley at an alarming rate. They come for the same opportunity European immigrants came before, the freedom to succeed and also be accepted.
Hate to burst your bubble, but ,at the last company I worked for, we recruited heavily from IIT ( and their peers). In every interview, without exception, the deciding factor was MONEY, period, paragraph. 22 year old Indian kids are just like very intelligent capitalist American kids......Show me the money, I can make my own opportunity.
One final comment on:
INNOVATION, CREATIVITY AND TECHNOLOGY
China builds world’s fastest supercomputer without U.S. chips
There is no U.S.-made system that comes close to the performance of China's new system, the Sunway TaihuLight.
China on Monday revealed its latest supercomputer, a monolithic system with 10.65 million compute cores built entirely with Chinese microprocessors. This follows a U.S. government decision last year to deny China access to Intel's fastest microprocessors.
The most important thing about Sunway TaihuLight may be its microprocessors. In the past, China has relied heavily on U.S. microprocessors in building its supercomputing capacity. The world's next fastest system, China's Tianhe-2, which has a peak performance of 54.9 petaflops, uses Intel Xeon processors.
TaihuLight, which is installed at China's National Supercomputing Center in Wuxi, uses ShenWei CPUs developed by Jiangnan Computing Research Lab in Wuxi. The operating system is a Linux-based Chinese system called Sunway Raise.
China now has more supercomputers in the Top500 list than the U.S., said Dongarra. "China has 167 systems on the June 2016 Top500 list compared to 165 systems in the U.S," he said, in an email. Ten years ago, China had 10 systems on the list.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3085483/high-performance-computing/china-builds-world-s-fastest-supercomputer-without-u-s-chips.html
Surf n Turf,
Respectfully, I think you are actually missing my point. As long as America maintains her moral appeal we will continue to build and retain talent whether we grow it domestically or import it from abroad. This was the case historically when Einstein and all the other German scientists who were instrumental to the Manhattan project chose America over Russia, and remains so now with people like Elon Musk. When America loses this singular appeal we are then on the sobering path you mention.
Of course these IIT kids you mention are motivated by money and opportunity, but why does the choice for them generally come down to the US or staying home in India? It's not just money, Putin or the Saudis also pay up for tech talent, but who really wants to move to Russia or Riyadh over the USA? The Saudis are notorious for overpaying for mediocre talent just to get people out there.
Having lived and worked in both Silicon Valley and Shanghai, while Sunway may be an exception I'd generally take any numbers or figures coming out of China with a grain of salt, and while they do have sharp kids, generally I've seen firsthand the the limitations of an educational system based primarily on rote memorization and a moral code with little concern with frankly stealing or cheating their asses off.
Either way, I thought we were discussing the merits of diversity, which IMHO has very little to do with the declining US educational standards you cite.
Or as Mr. Trump might say, " Careful what you wish for, if we admitted kids to Ivy League schools based only on academic merit and test scores, the campus cafeterias would serve nothing but bagels and samosas...
Diversity has become one of the most abused words in the English Lexicon of today. It has taken on a "PC'ish ness" that means far more than its commonly accepted meaning.
I have had a couple of conversations with Andrew Ishibashi about education. He cares about his profession and the people he serves to the detriment of his own physical health.
I think his point, as well as the report more generally, is being missed. The objective is not diversity for its own sake. The objective is to "train up" qualified students who are qualified to attend public schools like Powell, and have the potential and the motivation to do well, but did not get the teaching they needed before they arrive.
By training them up, as well as by listening to their concerns, schools such as Lowell hope to enable these kids to buy into the "system" and themselves, rather than going elsewhere and/or despairing.
Surf n Turf
06-22-2016, 12:26
As long as America maintains her moral appeal we will continue to build and retain talent whether we grow it domestically or import it from abroad.
When America loses this singular appeal we are then on the sobering path you mention.
I believe this "moral appeal" you speak of has been spent. It was spent in larger, insincere, inefficient Government defining decency downward, nation building in the world, and unprincipled pander at home. It was spent on social experiments that always fail, but can be made right with more money...only more money. We still have an unknown claim on our" moral appeal" with the sanctioned illegal import of millions of left on the bell curve unskilled proles.
but why does the choice for them generally come down to the US or staying home in India?
Either way, I thought we were discussing the merits of diversity, which IMHO has very little to do with the declining US educational standards you cite.
One anecdote I will mention was from a Senior Consultant, whose wife is a Pediatric orthodontist / Surgeon. Their plan was to stay in America long enough to get citizenship, save money, and then return to India to have and raise their children. They found American culture was great fun for Adults, but a terrible environment to raise children.
The state of American education standards is a following indicator of the onslaught of migration and decay of our institutions, ethic, and culture. Don't you consider the open border to our South a primary factor in the changing diversity of our schools, towns and neighborhoods ? I would think that living in California that fact would focus your attention.
Or as Mr. Trump might say, " Careful what you wish for, if we admitted kids to Ivy League schools based only on academic merit and test scores, the campus cafeterias would serve nothing but bagels and samosas...
...... Chicken Rice, Kimchi, sukiyaki, and dim sum
Game, set, match to you
SnT
Fisher v. Texas: Affirmative action at the University of Texas is constitutional, the Supreme Court rules
Updated by Libby Nelson on June 23, 2016, 10:22 a.m. ET @libbyanelson
Affirmative action in college admissions has survived yet another Supreme Court challenge. The Court ruled 4-3 on Thursday that the University of Texas Austin's admissions procedures are constitutional, deciding Fisher v. Texas for the second time in three years, this time in the university's favor.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a four-justice majority that also included Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer, concluded that the university's consideration of students' race was constitutional. (Here is the full opinion. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself because she did work related to the case during her time as solicitor general.)
UT Austin had specific goals for the diversity of its student body, and the majority was convinced by the university's argument that they could not achieve those goals in any other way.
UT Austin's admission plan is somewhat unique. Kennedy cautioned that the university should continue to reevaluate the plan as more evidence emerges about its effects. And so the opinion itself doesn't make sweeping proclamations about how long affirmative action will be necessary, as former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor did with Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003.
Still, when the Court voted to take up the Fisher case for the second time in three years, many speculated that this would be the opinion that gutted the use of race in college admissions. Instead, the case was an outright win for the University of Texas and the Court's liberals, although it reiterated to colleges that their affirmative action plans will have to meet high standards if challenged in court.
The case, Fisher v. Texas, challenged UT Austin's admissions procedures. Most of its students are chosen by admitting the students at the top of every high school class in the state.
Because Texas's high schools are generally racially homogeneous, that ensures a certain amount of racial diversity: The majority-black high schools send black students, the majority-Latino high schools send Latino students, and the majority-white high schools send white students.
But the university also admits some students who aren't in the top 10 percent of their high school class through another process, one that takes into account musical and athletic talent, as well as race and other factors. That's the process that was challenged by Abigail Fisher, who was denied admission through the so-called "holistic review."
Fisher has since graduated from Louisiana State University. But her challenge to the University of Texas admissions policy lasted longer than her college career.
At the heart of the case is whether the top 10 percent plan creates a diverse student body without the need for considering individual students' race in the admissions process. The Supreme Court has ruled that the educational benefits of diversity for all students should be the rationale for affirmative action, rather than giving black and Hispanic students a leg up because they've historically been discriminated against.
The case first reached the Supreme Court in the 2012-'13 term, but the Court sent the case back to the Fifth Circuit, arguing that it didn't hold the university to a high enough standard in determining whether its use of affirmative action was constitutional.
A panel of three judges from the Fifth Circuit, in July 2014, reviewed the case using that higher standard and again found in the university's favor. And the opinion essentially called the Supreme Court's bluff, arguing that if the Court wanted a different result, it would have to overturn Grutter v. Bollinger, the 2003 case that found affirmative action was constitutional if used as part of a holistic review of an applicant's credentials.
The big question was about how to define "diversity"
The 10 percent plan does create some racial diversity at the University of Texas, where only 4 percent of students are black. In 2014, three-quarters of them were admitted on the basis of their high school rank.
But schools serving a student body that consists mostly of students of color are more likely to be poor, and they're more likely to offer an inferior education, as measured by students' test scores, than the predominantly white schools that the university's white students come from.
The university argued that the top 10 percent plan wasn't sufficient because it didn't achieve true diversity. The students of color admitted under that plan were often from poor families and attended high schools that didn't offer an education that could prepare them as well for college. They often had lower test scores on the SAT and ACT.
The result, the university argued, was that although the entering class might be racially diverse, it wasn't diverse in the fullest sense. It didn't include students of color from middle-class families or from better high schools, or students of all races with talents not captured in their class rank.
Fisher's lawyers argued that the university was stereotyping the black and Hispanic students admitted through the top 10 percent plan by undercutting their potential. But the Supreme Court didn't buy that argument. Nor did Kennedy find the argument that the top 10 percent plan alone would have created sufficient diversity.
"A system that selected every student through class rank alone would exclude the star athlete or musician whose grades suffered because of daily practices and training," he wrote. "It would exclude a talented young biologist who struggled to maintain above-average grades in humanities classes. And it would exclude a student whose freshman-year grades were poor because of a family crisis but who got herself back on track in her last three years of school."
The opinion was narrow, but it shows the hurdles affirmative action programs will have to clear
When the Supreme Court last decided Fisher v. Texas in 2013, sending the case back to the Fifth Circuit, it set high standards for affirmative action programs to meet:
Colleges could only consider race in admissions if they can give a "reasoned, principled explanation" for wanting a diverse student body.
The programs must be narrowly tailored, or specifically designed to accomplish a goal.
And they must withstand strict scrutiny, meaning colleges have to prove affirmative action was the only way to accomplish its diversity goals.
In the majority opinion, Kennedy concluded that the university's plan met those standards: "The University spent seven years attempting to achieve its compelling interest using race-neutral holistic review. None of these efforts succeeded."
But those three requirements are still a higher bar to judicial approval than affirmative action faced before Fisher was decided for the first time. And because the top 10 percent plan is unique, the decision does not provide much guidance on how other universities can ensure their admissions procedures are constitutional.
The opinion ends with a note of caution: The University of Texas got a win, but it wasn't being written a blank check. "It is the University's ongoing obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection," Kennedy wrote.
The Court's conservatives dissented strongly
The three justices who dissented — Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Clarence Thomas — argued that the University of Texas's plan failed to meet the Supreme Court's requirements, and that the university's justifications for why it needed to consider race in admissions were amorphous and frequently shifted.
In the dissent, Alito argued that the university was defining diversity only in terms of numbers, and that the real goal was "racial balancing" — or getting the demographics of the university to reflect the demographics of the state. The Court has held that racial balancing is unconstitutional.
To make that point, Alito argued at length that the University of Texas is disadvantaging Asian-American students, who are overrepresented in classrooms relative to their share of the state's population but make up a very small slice of the student body overall.
"In UT's view, apparently, 'Asian Americans are not worth as much as Hispanics in promoting ‘cross-racial understanding,' breaking down ‘racial stereotypes,' and enabling students to ‘better understand persons of different races,'" Alito wrote.
He argued on behalf of the minority that the University of Texas did not do enough to prove its case: "Even though UT has never provided any coherent explanation for its asserted need to discriminate on the basis of race, and even though UT's position relies on a series of unsupported and noxious racial assumptions, the majority concludes that UT has met its heavy burden. This conclusion is remarkable — and remarkably wrong," the dissent concluded.
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/23/11743972/fisher-texas-affirmative-action-supreme-court
Team Sergeant
06-23-2016, 15:01
I have had a couple of conversations with Andrew Ishibashi about education. He cares about his profession and the people he serves to the detriment of his own physical health.
I think his point, as well as the report more generally, is being missed. The objective is not diversity for its own sake. The objective is to "train up" qualified students who are qualified to attend public schools like Powell, and have the potential and the motivation to do well, but did not get the teaching they needed before they arrive.
By training them up, as well as by listening to their concerns, schools such as Lowell hope to enable these kids to buy into the "system" and themselves, rather than going elsewhere and/or despairing.
You do remember who you're talking to don't you? We understand "sacrifice" more than most.
frostfire
06-24-2016, 04:04
To make that point, Alito argued at length that the University of Texas is disadvantaging Asian-American students, who are overrepresented in classrooms relative to their share of the state's population but make up a very small slice of the student body overall.
"In UT's view, apparently, 'Asian Americans are not worth as much as Hispanics in promoting ‘cross-racial understanding,' breaking down ‘racial stereotypes,' and enabling students to ‘better understand persons of different races,'" Alito wrote.
He argued on behalf of the minority that the University of Texas did not do enough to prove its case: "Even though UT has never provided any coherent explanation for its asserted need to discriminate on the basis of race, and even though UT's position relies on a series of unsupported and noxious racial assumptions, the majority concludes that UT has met its heavy burden. This conclusion is remarkable — and remarkably wrong," the dissent concluded.
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/23/11743972/fisher-texas-affirmative-action-supreme-court
I suspect this discriminated group won't take it to the court, or social media or mass whining route....
Instead, this group would follow what Condolezza Rice's upbringing taught her
“That message was: It may be a very racist place, and you may not be able to control your circumstances, but you can sure control how you react to your circumstances. Here’s how you react: You’re twice as good, you work hard, you do everything better than they might do it.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/27/condoleezza-rice-growing-up_n_6549632.html
I would give my L kidney and L lung to see Condi become the "education czar"
PedOncoDoc
06-24-2016, 07:27
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Well.....
:mad:
Well.....
:mad:
Like that will ever happen, everyone has to be labeled by the liberals, be it by race, gender, etc. etc. When it comes down to it many of us have the same dream but it will never be realized.