ADVERTISEMENT

Purdue just WOKE up

so what is your point here? that they are unqualified to be professors because they aren't white males? or are you saying they can't possibly be top talent *because* they aren't white males?


(in before this gets locked)
 
  • Angry
Reactions: hoosierdog1
Perhaps you have never heard of bias in determining who and what is considered excellent or the best at something. Do some research and report back on your journey.

Yea, come to think of it, we have no Asian or Latinos on our basketball team....CMP should fix that immediately. Afterall diversity is way more important than excllence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bonefish1
I agree. Probably should use skin color to determine who should get jobs. Also should use things like gender and sexual preference too.
Don't forget political affiliation, although that might be a given.
 
Hopefully a majority of the new faculty hires are right leaning conservatives and not militant lefty libs.
 
Hopefully a majority of the new faculty hires are right leaning conservatives and not militant lefty libs.
Yeah right!

giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoilerPride
The speculative concerns are for the potential hires of less capable people, as well as what has happened on campus that warrants more staff? When you have a group promoting equity instead of equality, there is an admission that hiring the most qualified candidates from various demographics is “NOT” the primary interest. Instead, demographics (and probably not diverse in demographics as most of these groups are not) is the primary qualification. When prioritizing “equity” instead of “equality” there naturally runs the risk of hurting different demographics that belong to another demographic providing diversity. What happens when a demographic is sought and a more qualified person fundamentally inside the criteria for more diversity is not hired…since equality was not sought, but equity instead? It is not fair to the “minority” demographic person most qualified for the job to not get hired, had equality been the focal point?

I remember the conversation of Ric ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulric_Haynes ) who was the head of personnel at Cummins in Columbus, Indiana on “Affirmative Action”. He said we are going to try to hire more blacks in Cummins, but they will be the most qualified and will not be hiring just any black applicant, since it wasn’t fair to those that worked hard to be qualified. He was concerned that the focal point would be hiring blacks instead of hiring the most qualified people that happen to be black or another minority. No doubt some crossover occurs even if undesired from an honest perspective. When you are focused on equity instead of equality for all, those things can happen. If you only have a hammer in your tool box…every problem looks like a nail…

It is important to understand the difference between equality for all and equity. Believe me hiring 50 people cannot begin to represent all the diversity options that exist. That is the illogic of intersectionality.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BSIT and bonefish1
The speculative concerns are for the potential hires of less capable people, as well as what has happened on campus that warrants more staff? When you have a group promoting equity instead of equality, there is an admission that hiring the most qualified candidates from various demographics is “NOT” the primary interest. Instead, demographics (and probably not diverse in demographics as most of these groups are not) is the primary qualification. When prioritizing “equity” instead of “equality” there naturally runs the risk of hurting different demographics that belong to another demographic providing diversity. What happens when a demographic is sought and a more qualified person fundamentally inside the criteria for more diversity is not hired…since equality was not sought, but equity instead? It is not fair to the “minority” demographic person most qualified for the job to not get hired, had equality been the focal point?

I remember the conversation of Ric ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulric_Haynes ) who was the head of personnel at Cummins in Columbus, Indiana on “Affirmative Action”. He said we are going to try to hire more blacks in Cummins, but they will be the most qualified and will not be hiring just any black applicant, since it wasn’t fair to those that worked hard to be qualified. He was concerned that the focal point would be hiring blacks instead of hiring the most qualified people that happen to be black or another minority. No doubt some crossover occurs even if undesired from an honest perspective. When you are focused on equity instead of equality for all, those things can happen. If you only have a hammer in your tool box…every problem looks like a nail…

It is important to understand the difference between equality for all and equity. Believe me hiring 50 people cannot begin to represent all the diversity options that exist. That is the illogic of intersectionality.
For how many years did qualified people get excluded because of their color or their race or their gender or their sexual preference? Did you have a problem with it then?

As we have already seen, the pendulum is going to swing too far the other way for a while. I'm sorry you don't like that. Minorities that got excluded for years, hell decades or longer, didn't like it either.

When we eliminate bias in this country we will solve the problem and people will be hired because they're qualified and all other factors will be excluded. Unfortunately this backlash will probably push that out even farther.
 
As we have already seen, the pendulum is going to swing too far the other way for a while. I'm sorry you don't like that. Minorities that got excluded for years, hell decades or longer, didn't like it either.
So your answer is to just make the 'other side' miserable instead of just fixing the problem? Let me guess you're white aren't you? Why do you white folks think you know what it takes to fix problems in minority communities just by simply 'swinging the pendulum' for a while. The sheer arrogance and subsequent stupidity of your comment is mind blowing.

I'm a minority and had no problems getting in because I studied and had the grades to do so. Your 'solution' is just moronic there pedoBob.

Simply letting people in because of skin color or whatever only makes the problem worse.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bonefish1 and BSIT
For how many years did qualified people get excluded because of their color or their race or their gender or their sexual preference? Did you have a problem with it then?

As we have already seen, the pendulum is going to swing too far the other way for a while. I'm sorry you don't like that. Minorities that got excluded for years, hell decades or longer, didn't like it either.

When we eliminate bias in this country we will solve the problem and people will be hired because they're qualified and all other factors will be excluded. Unfortunately this backlash will probably push that out even farther.
Can you imagine in this capitalistic country years ago not hiring the best candidate and inhibiting your profit, gross and expansion if desired just because you didn't want someone that didn't look like you? It is moronic to attempt to simplify all the issues at play by ignoring reality and focusing on physical appearance only. This is for simpletons, because any thinking adult understands there are many issues at play above and beyond a physical demographic.

The single biggest indicator of success that can be "measured" is education. I think you will find quite a big difference in education over the years if you look. That is one reason why Thomas Sowell is held in such high regard. This icon of logic, intelligence and research gained the status you said didn't happen years ago and yet you can see him 40 years ago on youtube with the elite minds of the time. Simpletons gather around race and ignore reality because it is easy pablum to eat.

Now I'm more than willing to play the ...who is the most oppressed demograpic with you to show the illogical nature of intersectionality. How are you going to divide up the 50 people when "equity" rather than equality is sought?

Are you going to have enough Chinese...Hispanics...Russians...Palestinians...North Koreans...Native Indians...Indians and so forth. What about women in all the groups...tranny's in each...lesbians...gays...left handed people...right handed people...fat people...short people...people from single homes...people from mixed marriages...Jews...first to attend college and so forth. Who you going to leave out? Why, were they not the "equity" sought to advance what was desired? Even the libs think tank understand Intersectionality always goes back to the individual. They just know there are enough dumb people to buy what they sell as James Carville is fully aware.

Imagine a thought that someone that was NOT directly hurt by another, having that other bearing reparations (has many faces) to that person not hurt? Equity may be disquised as racisim, sexism ...homophobic or categories not yet invented, but it will always be something different than equality. I have no issue with equality...just with equity because I am not that which those that espouse equity are...whether racist..homophobes or whatever they have a biased view.
 
Can you imagine in this capitalistic country years ago not hiring the best candidate and inhibiting your profit, gross and expansion if desired just because you didn't want someone that didn't look like you? It is moronic to attempt to simplify all the issues at play by ignoring reality and focusing on physical appearance only. This is for simpletons, because any thinking adult understands there are many issues at play above and beyond a physical demographic.

The single biggest indicator of success that can be "measured" is education. I think you will find quite a big difference in education over the years if you look. That is one reason why Thomas Sowell is held in such high regard. This icon of logic, intelligence and research gained the status you said didn't happen years ago and yet you can see him 40 years ago on youtube with the elite minds of the time. Simpletons gather around race and ignore reality because it is easy pablum to eat.

Now I'm more than willing to play the ...who is the most oppressed demograpic with you to show the illogical nature of intersectionality. How are you going to divide up the 50 people when "equity" rather than equality is sought?

Are you going to have enough Chinese...Hispanics...Russians...Palestinians...North Koreans...Native Indians...Indians and so forth. What about women in all the groups...tranny's in each...lesbians...gays...left handed people...right handed people...fat people...short people...people from single homes...people from mixed marriages...Jews...first to attend college and so forth. Who you going to leave out? Why, were they not the "equity" sought to advance what was desired? Even the libs think tank understand Intersectionality always goes back to the individual. They just know there are enough dumb people to buy what they sell as James Carville is fully aware.

Imagine a thought that someone that was NOT directly hurt by another, having that other bearing reparations (has many faces) to that person not hurt? Equity may be disquised as racisim, sexism ...homophobic or categories not yet invented, but it will always be something different than equality. I have no issue with equality...just with equity because I am not that which those that espouse equity are...whether racist..homophobes or whatever they have a biased view.
You aren't even reading what I said.

This capitalist country was built by white men because white men had more opportunities and white men had more education. Period. How do minorities become the best candidates that they aren't educated like the white male candidates?

Answer that question and maybe we can move on. But if all you're going to focus on are the imperfect attempts now to level the system then just go away.

Quotas and the like are wrong and we have to find a better way. But we also have to change a system that have kept these minorities from getting these jobs for a long long time.
 
So your answer is to just make the 'other side' miserable instead of just fixing the problem? Let me guess you're white aren't you? Why do you white folks think you know what it takes to fix problems in minority communities just by simply 'swinging the pendulum' for a while. The sheer arrogance and subsequent stupidity of your comment is mind blowing.

I'm a minority and had no problems getting in because I studied and had the grades to do so. Your 'solution' is just moronic there pedoBob.

Simply letting people in because of skin color or whatever only makes the problem worse.
Who's the one that's supposed to be miserable?
 
Who's the one that's supposed to be miserable?
Using your own words:

'the pendulum is going to swing too far the other way for a while'

So whomever you are indicating here. It says a lot when your own post has to be explained to you. But based on your white guilt I am going to assume you meant white people. Again it's very telling that a non-white has to explain this all to you.
 
You aren't even reading what I said.

This capitalist country was built by white men because white men had more opportunities and white men had more education. Period. How do minorities become the best candidates that they aren't educated like the white male candidates?

Answer that question and maybe we can move on. But if all you're going to focus on are the imperfect attempts now to level the system then just go away.

Quotas and the like are wrong and we have to find a better way. But we also have to change a system that have kept these minorities from getting these jobs for a long long time.
Snip...snip...
"While there are examples of schools where this happens in our own time-- both public and private, secular and religious-- we can also go back nearly a hundred years and find the same phenomenon. Back in 1899, in Washington, D. C., there were four academic public high schools-- one black and three white.1 In standardized tests given that year, students in the black high school averaged higher test scores than students in two of the three white high schools.2
This was not a fluke. It so happens that I have followed 85 years of the history of this black high school-- from 1870 to 1955 --and found it repeatedly equalling or exceeding national norms on standardized tests.3 In the 1890s, it was called The M Street School and after 1916 it was renamed Dunbar High School but its academic performances on standardized tests remained good on into the mid-1950s."

THE EDUCATION OF MINORITY CHILDREN

Today, we know the education gap...
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT