Reply to NYTimes article on diversity in admissions

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "NYTimes article on diversity in admissions"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]comments are largely negative.  NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess. [/quote]

The comments on migrant and affirmative action articles in NYT always more negative than positive commenters. Considering the average subscriber is more liberal than the average American, I normally take it as a sort of litmus test politicians, institutions, etc. have gone too far to the left on some topics. WSJ commenters are much more conservative on almost every issue. [/quote]

Yes, I think the NYT comment page is a good insight into what positions are popular and what positions are political losers.

The NYT comments are extremely pro-reproductive rights and pro-public education, so the idea that they are hidden conservatives is way off. The issue is that a lot of progressive leftist positions have become extremely unpopular across the board. DEI is one of them. Trans rights (particularly where that means girls and women suffer) is another. [/quote]

Agree w both these comments. The NYT subscribers are generally Biden-voting, college graduate demo.  Not young/not old. When you’ve lost them, time to rethink the policy. [/quote]

+1
I’m a NYT subscriber, Anyone But Trump, Biden voter, pro choice, kids in public school. And agree that most comments on immigration and education reflect what’s now a moderate position which means not in line with progressive positions. [/quote]

Another reason why this board should not be completely anonymous.  This does not jive with most moderate left. Either this is a fake poster, or you are right wing but not for Trump, and do you really subscribe? Whatever the case, this does not seem indicative of many NYT subscribers.

And political lobby entities are subscribing to influence the conversation in comments. The whole political spamming on various socyal media, comment boards, etc is a real thing. That's what organizations raise money and invest in, not commercials.  How else will they influence people? I see tge rhetoric ftom this article again and again here. ‘America Is Under Attack’: Inside the Anti-D.E.I. Crusade https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/20/us/dei-woke-claremont-institute.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

Sure, it's not as prevalent on NYT,  and there are varied points of view on the article (like emphasizing ECE), but most in higher ed would be thinking along those lines. And, the major detractors (like the people asserting intelligence with race) are not the majority view.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics