Anonymous wrote:You have some issues with your logic. We could make changes to our society now (e.g., reducing systemic racism) that would benefit people now and several generations hence. The fact that we are influenced by social phenomena of the past does not make our society immutable and unable to be improved.
Anonymous wrote:Yeah, there's no way that things that happened decades ago could affect us now...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:“The demise of affirmative action poses an existential threat to a vibrant, diverse, and inclusive liberal arts institution,” Reyes said. “To lament this terrible event, and simultaneously to continue athletic admissions that preference rich white people, is racist.”
lmao talk about hysterical nonsense.
The motion was introduced by Professor of Economics Jessica Reyes
"Currently, my teaching and research energies are almost entirely focused on antiracist work. I believe it is necessary to engage with our role as economists in maintaining the fiction that American capitalism is a system of meritocracy and freedom, rather than a system of oppression and unfreedom – racial patriarchal capitalism... I have incorporated antiracist content and pluralist economic content into the economics thesis process and all of my existing courses, and I have developed three new courses: Economics of Race and Gender, AntiRacist AntiEconomics, and Pluralist Economics."
Yeah so she's a communist zealot just as you'd expect. Imagine paying $80k a year for that nonsense.![]()
Bless your heart. Tough to package that much stupid into a single post, but you did it.
News flash: working against systemic racism (for which the evidence in literally every sphere of American life is overwhelming) doesn’t make you a zealot or a communist. Perhaps you should attend college so you can learn what those words mean.
Systemic racism does not actually exist, it was invented by communists in order to justify redistribution of wealth. This woman is absolutely a zealot and a communist. As I have a PhD myself, I know the type very well. You obviously never went to college, or you would recognize it yourself.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:“The demise of affirmative action poses an existential threat to a vibrant, diverse, and inclusive liberal arts institution,” Reyes said. “To lament this terrible event, and simultaneously to continue athletic admissions that preference rich white people, is racist.”
lmao talk about hysterical nonsense.
The motion was introduced by Professor of Economics Jessica Reyes
"Currently, my teaching and research energies are almost entirely focused on antiracist work. I believe it is necessary to engage with our role as economists in maintaining the fiction that American capitalism is a system of meritocracy and freedom, rather than a system of oppression and unfreedom – racial patriarchal capitalism... I have incorporated antiracist content and pluralist economic content into the economics thesis process and all of my existing courses, and I have developed three new courses: Economics of Race and Gender, AntiRacist AntiEconomics, and Pluralist Economics."
Yeah so she's a communist zealot just as you'd expect. Imagine paying $80k a year for that nonsense.![]()
Bless your heart. Tough to package that much stupid into a single post, but you did it.
News flash: working against systemic racism (for which the evidence in literally every sphere of American life is overwhelming) doesn’t make you a zealot or a communist. Perhaps you should attend college so you can learn what those words mean.
Anonymous wrote:If you look at rosters from basically all nescac schools, nearly all students went to private school. College admission isn’t equal or equitable. I don’t know what to even say. What will opening this secret and releasing the Amherst data do? Suddenly recruit lower class or impoverished students to suddenly play soccer really well and go to Amherst? It isn’t equitable.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So does a SLAC or any college/university really need to field a full range of sports at the highest levels (in D1, D2, D3, etc.)? I'm a big believer in a sound mind in a sound body. But wouldn't that be better achieved by offering more kids an opportunity to play a variety of sports in college, even at an entry level, than spending your time and capital on recruiting the best squash players whose parents have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on their training leading up to college?
The alumni want the sports. The administrators want the sports.
Sports are not going away in college.
I think that response is a little facile as we are currently going through something of a sea change in college admissions. Why do administrators want the sports? And I don't think the big college football programs are going away anytime because they're big money makers, but a SLAC golf or equestrian program? Is maintaining that program but making it all walk on going to be a huge hit to alumni giving? It's the SLACs where the quantity of sports leads to a large percentage of the student body being recruited athletes who do not tend to come from diverse backgrounds.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So does a SLAC or any college/university really need to field a full range of sports at the highest levels (in D1, D2, D3, etc.)? I'm a big believer in a sound mind in a sound body. But wouldn't that be better achieved by offering more kids an opportunity to play a variety of sports in college, even at an entry level, than spending your time and capital on recruiting the best squash players whose parents have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on their training leading up to college?
The alumni want the sports. The administrators want the sports.
Sports are not going away in college.
Anonymous wrote:So does a SLAC or any college/university really need to field a full range of sports at the highest levels (in D1, D2, D3, etc.)? I'm a big believer in a sound mind in a sound body. But wouldn't that be better achieved by offering more kids an opportunity to play a variety of sports in college, even at an entry level, than spending your time and capital on recruiting the best squash players whose parents have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on their training leading up to college?
Anonymous wrote:So does a SLAC or any college/university really need to field a full range of sports at the highest levels (in D1, D2, D3, etc.)? I'm a big believer in a sound mind in a sound body. But wouldn't that be better achieved by offering more kids an opportunity to play a variety of sports in college, even at an entry level, than spending your time and capital on recruiting the best squash players whose parents have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on their training leading up to college?