Accreditors are considering dropping diversity requirements

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choosing someone for their race constitutes discriminating against someone else for their race in college applications. And of course that should be illegal.

How would people like it if some college said, “We require at least 95% white people! Oh we aren’t discriminating against black people really! We just want at least 95% white people.” Everyone would be outraged.

We should also avoid scenario 2. What’s clear amongst republicans is they want an outright reduction and make it near impossible for poor students and students of color to enter higher ed, at least the highest rungs of higher ed. They continue to sue schools who don’t have the type of diversity they want and continue to perpetuate the idea that black students are inherently worse applicants.

That is sheer BS. The only thing at issue is RACE-based discrimination (or favoritism). First-gen / low-income students are given aid based on their financial status, not race.

Sorry, but the color of your skin should not dictate the amount of aid or preference you get.

Thank you for not addressing my comment. There are currently many issues related to financial aid hurting the poor right now as we speak, particularly for professional school. But yeah, advocate for the poor while doing nothing but sitting on your ass and complaining about black people.

Wow, the chip on your shoulder must be visible from space - your victim complex certainly is.

I said nothing at all about black people - OTC, it’s YOU who is absolutely fixated on the color of people’s skin. You know what that’s called? Racism.

That is sheer BS. The only thing at issue is RACE-based discrimination (or favoritism).

Favoritism of who? Who's receiving all this favoritism? What group could you possibly be talking about? Myanmar-Americans? White-Descendants-of-Italians? The Iroquois? You totally didn't skirt around saying what you really meant by just saying race, right

You are utterly unhinged. I truly have no idea what you’re ranting about, and it’s pretty clear you don’t either.

Classic dcum. Suddenly nothing makes sense when it’s most convenient

No, you are flat-out making no sense. Ranting about “Myanmar-Americans,” etc?

Tell us: why do you think anyone should get race-based preferences? We’ll wait.

What race were you talking about getting preferences? This is why I don’t believe you’re confused. You know exactly what you said and now want to act like I’ve said something completely out of left field.

ANY race, dumbass! Stop being deliberately obtuse and answer the question.
DP

He is basically saying that the only reason you dislike diversity is because it helps blacks.

+1

Anti-black racism is real.

So is anti-white racism and anti-asian racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choosing someone for their race constitutes discriminating against someone else for their race in college applications. And of course that should be illegal.

How would people like it if some college said, “We require at least 95% white people! Oh we aren’t discriminating against black people really! We just want at least 95% white people.” Everyone would be outraged.

We should also avoid scenario 2. What’s clear amongst republicans is they want an outright reduction and make it near impossible for poor students and students of color to enter higher ed, at least the highest rungs of higher ed. They continue to sue schools who don’t have the type of diversity they want and continue to perpetuate the idea that black students are inherently worse applicants.

That is sheer BS. The only thing at issue is RACE-based discrimination (or favoritism). First-gen / low-income students are given aid based on their financial status, not race.

Sorry, but the color of your skin should not dictate the amount of aid or preference you get.

Thank you for not addressing my comment. There are currently many issues related to financial aid hurting the poor right now as we speak, particularly for professional school. But yeah, advocate for the poor while doing nothing but sitting on your ass and complaining about black people.

Wow, the chip on your shoulder must be visible from space - your victim complex certainly is.

I said nothing at all about black people - OTC, it’s YOU who is absolutely fixated on the color of people’s skin. You know what that’s called? Racism.

That is sheer BS. The only thing at issue is RACE-based discrimination (or favoritism).

Favoritism of who? Who's receiving all this favoritism? What group could you possibly be talking about? Myanmar-Americans? White-Descendants-of-Italians? The Iroquois? You totally didn't skirt around saying what you really meant by just saying race, right

You are utterly unhinged. I truly have no idea what you’re ranting about, and it’s pretty clear you don’t either.

Classic dcum. Suddenly nothing makes sense when it’s most convenient

No, you are flat-out making no sense. Ranting about “Myanmar-Americans,” etc?

Tell us: why do you think anyone should get race-based preferences? We’ll wait.

What race were you talking about getting preferences? This is why I don’t believe you’re confused. You know exactly what you said and now want to act like I’ve said something completely out of left field.

ANY race, dumbass! Stop being deliberately obtuse and answer the question.
DP

He is basically saying that the only reason you dislike diversity is because it helps blacks.

+1

Anti-black racism is real.

So is anti-white racism and anti-asian racism.

Seriously doubt you care about those things if your only reason for bringing them up is because someone brought up anti-black racism and you needed a gotcha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how much I really care either way but personally, I’d rather DEI requirements not exist. Not because diversity in general isn’t a good thing but because I’m Latina. The idea or mere appearance that I may have been selected, hired, picked because of some sort of diversity initiative really ticks me off.

They don't think you can get in without the preference.

They've been striving for racial parity for so long without being able to achieve it that they no longer believe you are capable of it.

Probably can’t if people were being completely honest. Most of the dei candidates needed the substantial boost to get in. It’s still just not politically popular right now to admit that blacks and Hispanics are not the brightest, and continue to embarrass themselves generation over generation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how much I really care either way but personally, I’d rather DEI requirements not exist. Not because diversity in general isn’t a good thing but because I’m Latina. The idea or mere appearance that I may have been selected, hired, picked because of some sort of diversity initiative really ticks me off.

EXACTLY.

As a woman in a male dominated field, I agree. It pisses me off that some people think I only got here because I’m the token woman and they needed me for diversity quotas. No, I’m just as competent as the men and can do the job as well as they can, and that’s why I’m here. I wish DEI never got started. And by the way, I hate to say it but unfortunately I have noticed that the women in the company used to be great and now they really aren’t. So I doubt I’m the only one who feels this way.

How do you know?
Are you sure they aren't taking it easy on you with a lighter more manageable workload so that you can succeed and they can have a successful female to point to?
Maybe they are playing up your wins and playing down your losses?
Maybe you are getting special attention that your male counterparts are not getting because you are a unicorn.

Seems unnecessary. People here act as if people want to work with incompetent people. There’s no benefit to working with someone who is behind everyone else, but there is a benefit to working with someone competent who contributes different perspectives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good god, you idiots think standardized tests mean that much? Ok, fine. Let’s just award Nobel prizes based on test scores then. We can also elect presidents this way. And award research grants, writing contracts, etc. Since a multiple choice exam can reveal such grand truths about a person’s intellectual and creative capabilities to achieve things in real life, using standardized test for everything would sure save a lot of effort thought.

The only problem is that standardized tests can’t do all that.

This is what they do in almost every other country because standardized test results are that fkn reliable.

You'd have to ratchet up[ the difficulty level so everyone doesn't get a top score

Almost all nobel prize winners have great standardized test scores. Test scores are very good predictors of published research and citation frequency.

Standardized test scores are great predictors of how many patents you will have and how far you will advance in your career.

Right now I would love a president with a good SAT score. I would take a random 45-65 year old that got a 1550+ (or equivalent) right now.

Interesting cause we’re the ones with the best higher education system in the world, the best researchers in the world, and most notable institutions in the world. But yes, let’s follow a systemically worse model, because some parents are upset that Amherst is 3% black.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choosing someone for their race constitutes discriminating against someone else for their race in college applications. And of course that should be illegal.

How would people like it if some college said, “We require at least 95% white people! Oh we aren’t discriminating against black people really! We just want at least 95% white people.” Everyone would be outraged.

We should also avoid scenario 2. What’s clear amongst republicans is they want an outright reduction and make it near impossible for poor students and students of color to enter higher ed, at least the highest rungs of higher ed. They continue to sue schools who don’t have the type of diversity they want and continue to perpetuate the idea that black students are inherently worse applicants.

That is sheer BS. The only thing at issue is RACE-based discrimination (or favoritism). First-gen / low-income students are given aid based on their financial status, not race.

Sorry, but the color of your skin should not dictate the amount of aid or preference you get.

Thank you for not addressing my comment. There are currently many issues related to financial aid hurting the poor right now as we speak, particularly for professional school. But yeah, advocate for the poor while doing nothing but sitting on your ass and complaining about black people.

Wow, the chip on your shoulder must be visible from space - your victim complex certainly is.

I said nothing at all about black people - OTC, it’s YOU who is absolutely fixated on the color of people’s skin. You know what that’s called? Racism.

That is sheer BS. The only thing at issue is RACE-based discrimination (or favoritism).

Favoritism of who? Who's receiving all this favoritism? What group could you possibly be talking about? Myanmar-Americans? White-Descendants-of-Italians? The Iroquois? You totally didn't skirt around saying what you really meant by just saying race, right

You are utterly unhinged. I truly have no idea what you’re ranting about, and it’s pretty clear you don’t either.

Classic dcum. Suddenly nothing makes sense when it’s most convenient

No, you are flat-out making no sense. Ranting about “Myanmar-Americans,” etc?

Tell us: why do you think anyone should get race-based preferences? We’ll wait.

What race were you talking about getting preferences? This is why I don’t believe you’re confused. You know exactly what you said and now want to act like I’ve said something completely out of left field.

I asked you a question first. Why do you think ANYONE should get race-based preferences - black, white, Latino, Asian, whatever? But of course, you won't answer that and instead, try and obfuscate. It's ok, we all see you.

Because no students (including white students) want to study in an environment that is overwhelmingly white or monoracial. Students (the consumers of the college product) WANT more racial/ethnic diversity. A college that can attract diverse student body is able to attract more students to matriculate there. They are in the sales business.

What a totally ridiculous answer. You’re implying that diverse students couldn’t possibly be accepted on their own merit and instead have to be chosen due to their race. This is exactly why DEI needs to be a thing of the past.
DP

Nobody believes that blacks are incapable of excelling more than the woke left.

I sincerely don’t believe republicans would accept it if penn (or any elite school) were fully meritocratic and more than 5% of the student population was black. They’re currently suing duke for this essentially. No one believes black people can excel without help, because they refuse to assimilate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how much I really care either way but personally, I’d rather DEI requirements not exist. Not because diversity in general isn’t a good thing but because I’m Latina. The idea or mere appearance that I may have been selected, hired, picked because of some sort of diversity initiative really ticks me off.

They don't think you can get in without the preference.

They've been striving for racial parity for so long without being able to achieve it that they no longer believe you are capable of it.

Probably can’t if people were being completely honest. Most of the dei candidates needed the substantial boost to get in. It’s still just not politically popular right now to admit that blacks and Hispanics are not the brightest, and continue to embarrass themselves generation over generation.

There it is again. Unbelievable. The true MAGA colors. And yet you still deny being racist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how much I really care either way but personally, I’d rather DEI requirements not exist. Not because diversity in general isn’t a good thing but because I’m Latina. The idea or mere appearance that I may have been selected, hired, picked because of some sort of diversity initiative really ticks me off.

They don't think you can get in without the preference.

They've been striving for racial parity for so long without being able to achieve it that they no longer believe you are capable of it.

Probably can’t if people were being completely honest. Most of the dei candidates needed the substantial boost to get in. It’s still just not politically popular right now to admit that blacks and Hispanics are not the brightest, and continue to embarrass themselves generation over generation.

There it is again. Unbelievable. The true MAGA colors. And yet you still deny being racist?

It’s not racist to admit that black people aren’t the best applicants by pure merit. That’s why they need DEI. There’s different ways of beating around the bush and (failing to) admit it, but at some point people will realize we need to start working on this disparity in middle school, not colleges and universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.chronicle.com/article/under-pressure-from-trump-the-accreditor-overseeing-harvard-proposes-nixing-dei-standards

This is a pretty big dinner of a lot of the push for diversity over merit. You think these schools are woke? This is where a lot of it comes from

Really hope all this DEI crap goes away and we get back to merit/performance. I can’t read the article above.

LOL. Pining for the return of uniformity, inequity, and exclusion of qualified folks who don’t fit the mold.

DP

The opposite of diversity/equity/inclusion is not homogeneity/injustice/exclusion.
The opposite of DEI is merit.

Diversity means racial preferences for URM
Equity means equality of outcomes
Inclusion doesn't seem well defined but in at least one case it means accepting that men should be able to compete in women's sports

+ a million
Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.chronicle.com/article/under-pressure-from-trump-the-accreditor-overseeing-harvard-proposes-nixing-dei-standards

This is a pretty big dinner of a lot of the push for diversity over merit. You think these schools are woke? This is where a lot of it comes from

The meritocracy crowd wants us to turn into china.

So it’s okay to turn into Europe but not China?

I don’t want either. I don’t want a Gaokao or an a levels system in the US. If you do, that’s…interesting, but I don’t think there’s a massive push to make high school much much harder than it currently is.

There's only one segment who wants this and they actually come from those systems.... so the question is why.

They don’t like having to actually think.

Hmmm interesting self-reflection from you …

I get that you exist in a cloud of gotcha arguments, but there’s no appeal to the gaokao. Your kids probably study enough, now imagine everything they done making them behind and they’d need to restart high school at 4 times the pace, go to Saturday school, and stay till 10 pm in order to catch up with their competition

All these are just smear campaigns against those talented kids, trying to reduce them into someone who can only put in hours, as if effort without ability explains everything. as if grinding alone could produce that level of excellence. It’s projection, and a bitter attempt to drag others down to justify their own mediocrity. You can’t match the results, so you attack the method.

I can't match the result? No, I can't, because I chose Harvard over having the goal of Peking University. The systems in East Asia are toxic and awfully demanding for children.

Again, you’re equating merit based system with Chinese system, part of your smear campaign. You don’t sound too smart.

Then...talk about a merit based system that wouldn't include a dramatic resorting of our education process and intense climb in academics.

Intense climb? Really? Is it possible they’re just smarter and have better intellectual talent?

what merit system do you want? What practical changes do you want to see? Not everything needs to be a flex about your intelligence.

Something not based on one’s identity to start with. How about that?

Which would include...? I'm asking for changes in processes, not your personal propaganda.

Go back to search this thread to find out the specifics. I sssume you’re at least capable of doing that which doesn’t involve much intelligence.

Yeah, your adjectives list isn't helpful. People want to know changes to their children's education and what to prioritize. Not that you're grumpy black people got into college.

No you don’t want to know anything. You just wanted the status quo’s which isn’t happening. Too bad. Cry me a river.

? Make a point, Jesus.

You’re too dumb to see the point. It’s like dumb students keeep asking teachers to explain a simple concept again and again. Now I get your hatred towards meritocracy.

Your point has been made. You don't have anything to say, but you hate black people. We get it, but that isn't exactly an indictment of anything but your personal racism. Now, are you ready to talk about what a meritocratic system looks like or will you cower again with some other nonsensical personal insult that won't carry the conversation. You've run away every time I've basically asked you to explain your perspective.

DP

When you make baseless accusations of racism in 2025, you are not only 5 years too late but you are basiaclly just admitting you have no argument other than accusations of racism.
Nobody cares about being called a racist anymore because you guys cried wolf for so long.

Exactly this. I am so glad that people are done being cowed and intimidation by the "RACIST!!" crowd. Enough is enough. These people had years of bullying people with no consequence but that has finally come to an end. Wanting hiring/admissions criteria to be based on merit rather than the color of one's skin is not racist. It's exactly the opposite, in fact. And these people are so stupid they can't even see how actually racist they are. Glad their time has come and gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not buying this “DP” crap.

That's because you don't understand what it means. It simply means the poster is not the same one the PP was responding to or conversing with. Not that they're new to the thread. It's so that the person they're responding to knows that they are not the same person. Get it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This forum should be renamed to “Pro Trump Discussions” as it’s hard to vote otherwise seeing what a cesspool is in reality 🤣

I'm not a Trump voter and I'm absolutely in favor of merit-based hiring and admissions. Try and wrap your tiny, narrow-minded brain around that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This forum should be renamed to “Pro Trump Discussions” as it’s hard to vote otherwise seeing what a cesspool is in reality 🤣

I'm not a Trump voter and I'm absolutely in favor of merit-based hiring and admissions. Try and wrap your tiny, narrow-minded brain around that.

How do you go merit based if you voted democrat communists? Sounds BS to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how much I really care either way but personally, I’d rather DEI requirements not exist. Not because diversity in general isn’t a good thing but because I’m Latina. The idea or mere appearance that I may have been selected, hired, picked because of some sort of diversity initiative really ticks me off.

They don't think you can get in without the preference.

They've been striving for racial parity for so long without being able to achieve it that they no longer believe you are capable of it.

Probably can’t if people were being completely honest. Most of the dei candidates needed the substantial boost to get in. It’s still just not politically popular right now to admit that blacks and Hispanics are not the brightest, and continue to embarrass themselves generation over generation.

There it is again. Unbelievable. The true MAGA colors. And yet you still deny being racist?

It’s not racist to admit that black people aren’t the best applicants by pure merit. That’s why they need DEI. There’s different ways of beating around the bush and (failing to) admit it, but at some point people will realize we need to start working on this disparity in middle school, not colleges and universities.

It’s one thing to argue for race blind admissions. It’s quite another to declare that “blacks and Hispanics are not the brightest and continue to embarrass themselves.” That’s just flat out racism. I’m willing to bet you wouldn’t like it so much if some one started spewing negative generalizations about Asians. In your mind you’ve already decided one race is superior, which you’ve already stated in previous deleted posts, and you wouldn’t accept any metric which didn’t put your own group on top. That’s racist. So cowardly for you not to own it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It hasn’t been that many generations since the Governor Wallace of Alabama stood in front of the doors at the University of Alabama so that black students could not enter.

When running for governor he said …

“ In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”

Those greatest people he was referring to were the white people of Alabama. He ran on states rights and claimed that allowing black students into white universities was hurting the white students of Alabama. The feet of tyranny was the federal government.

Wallace would have loved Trump. We have come a long way since the 60s but aren’t there yet.

If Affirmative action was primarily benefitting the descendants of slaves, you might have more of a point. But the fact is that there were far more black immigrants and hispanics getting an affirmative action preference than the descendants of slaves. The diversity rationale of Bakke (the wellspring of racial discrimination in college admissions) specifically rejected the notion that you could racially discriminate to address past racial discrimination.

I don't know if Wallace would have loved Trump. His daughter married a Jew and became Jewish. All with his blessing.

There is nothing keeping black students out of any college in a merit based system.

DP. This is the crux of the matter, right here (to include any minority student, not just black). The people in favor of DEI will *never* explain why they feel minority students deserve preferences. Never. A Latina poster even said that she hates DEI because people always assume she was hired due to her race rather than her abilities. The pro-DEI contingent has made it abundantly clear that they don't think minorities will be accepted to college WITHOUT racial preferences. That is one pathetic statement on their part.