Today’s post is at the Stream: University of Cincinnati Will Require Diversity Oath of Professors, Staff:
I once applied to a protesting Christian university for a position in its math department. The university required of its faculty several oaths, one of which being the Nicene Creed, a declaration to which I happily accede. But another would have required me to repudiate my Catholic faith, which I would not do. Thus, although I was well liked by the institution, and might have been offered a position, my refusal to swear to something I believed false was a permanent bar of employment.
Instead of being upset, I honored the university for its refusal to negotiate on its firmest principles. I disagreed with those principles, and am certain sure they are in error, but its actions in refusing comprise on a tenet and in its insistence on maintaining its identity was manly.
In the same way, we should honor the University of Cincinnati, which will require of its new faculty and staff to swear an oath to Diversity…
Diversity is our weakness. It is a satanic (some readers may wish to capitalize the word) religion more bizarre than anything L Ron Hubbard ever thought up. Diversity is manic, corrosive, unChristian, divisive, weakening, and most of all intolerant. Diversity requires strict unyeilding uniformity of its adherents.
At the least, Diversity is the giving of special considerations to members of officially designated victim groups whether or not individuals in those groups have suffered in any way for being members of these groups. This claim is backed by the University of Cincinnati itself, which includes a glossay of victimology in its Diversity Report which recommended the oath. For instance, the glossary defines empowerment: “When target [i.e. victim] group members refuse to accept the dominant ideology and their subordinate status and take actions to redistribute social power more equitably.”…
This theory provides a testable prediction. Look for, in the next year or two, a faculty of staff member of UC to be fired or disciplined for not being committed to Diversity strongly enough. (Those who are never hired we’ll never learn about.)
On your oath, go there to read the rest.
The editor at the Stream felt the first three paragraphs, which I include here, would be too confusing for the casual reader. I restore them here because I’m sure regular readers will understand.
Okay—let’s match the real world stats to the diversity figures:
13.3 % foreign born, 62% between the ages of 18 and 62, 80% white, 15% black, 2% Native American, 2.5% mixed race (that one is negotiable), 51% female, 31% Democrats, 29% Republican, 38% independent (subject to revision since numbers are based on polling), 74% believing in God (self-reported) and 4% gay (self-identified).
These should be the percentages of the students at the university and of the faculty. After all, we do NOT want to present an unbalanced or false picture of what America truly is, right? I’m all for the idea that college students learn the true diversity of their country.
As for requiring faculty to adhere to a diversity oath, I really don’t see that as any different than faculty in a religious college being required to believe in God, though I’m not entirely sure there is such a requirement based on news reports. Perhaps religious people are more tolerant than those who are not religious or those in the diversity movement?
The report has an interesting definition of racism:
A complex system of beliefs and behaviors, grounded in a presumed superiority of the white race. These beliefs and behaviors are conscious and unconscious; personal and institutional, and result in the oppression of people of color and benefit the dominant group, whites. A simpler definition is racial prejudice + power = racism.
“Diversity is our weakness.”
That’s the dumbest thing you’ve ever written.
JMJ
I live in Cincinnati. Some background for readers wondering why UC adopted this policy: Last year an unarmed black man was shot and killed by a UC police officer for what appears to be no reason. The tape is very clear that the man did nothing violent or threatening, and the officer is awaiting trial for murderl in what the county prosecutor called the most egregious shooting he’s ever seen. This policy was adopted following a lot of demonstrations from students and people in the city (the university is in a crowded urban area and people who are not students are frequently stopped by UC police). After the shooting, the police chief was replaced and a number of other changes were made. So this pledge did not come out of nowhere. Add to that that Cincinnati, a historically conservative city, has recently become a vanguard of socially liberal politics (the case that Obergefell v. Hodges was named for is from here) and the story makes more sense. A lot is going on. It’s hardly a beacon of free speech or academic freedom, but it didn’t come out of nowhere.
Diversity as an intentional assemblage of tokens does promote a weakness, in that it treats the Other as little more than a “collectable” by which the collector demonstrates his own righteousness to himself. Diversity as a motive leads to competition among favored groups. (A friend of mine in grad school once tried to get his citizenship fast-tracked under a minority program — he was a Persian immigrant — but alas, he was told, there weren’t enough Persians in America to constitute a minority. Since he was math/physics, this made no sense to him whatsoever. “I don’t think ‘minority’ means what it seems to mean.”)
Diversity simply as a matter of fact is not a weakness, but a sign that the overlying unity — the ‘unum’ that comes from the ‘pluribus’ — is universal in its appeal. That is: diversity as a consequence. For example, consider the diversity of the Communion of Saints, which includes St. Edith Stein, St. Charles Lwanga, St. Kateri Tekakwitha, and on and on. Surely, such a diverse group must rank high to praisers of diversity.
JMJ: Forced diversity is our weakness. Seems you love forcing progressivism but don’t like the reality that force is force, whether by the progressives or not. You’re ramming your valued down people’s throats there.
Gail: That explains where it comes from, but it is a policy that is flawed. As I noted with JMJ, one cannot force people to get along. Unfortunately, that seems to be the idea ever since the 60’s—the government can make you like someone or jail you if you don’t. So the police shootings increase because cops do start to hate the blacks who can commit crimes with impunity. The incident never should have been about race in a killing—it was a very bad, murderous cop who should go to jail. That’s it. I know it won’t be, but that would have been the proper response. However, where liberals are involved, rational, logical thought just never appears…….
If you liked affirmative action then you’re going to love diversity.
YOS, agreed.
Two points: 1) the Christian church (the people, not the organization) is the most diverse group one could ever find. 2) Diverse ecosystems made of numerous species are more resilient to perturbation because the organisms are interdependent. The Diversity movement at its best seeks the resilience without understanding the requirement for interdependence.
Diversity is akin to the classic revolution, in that you don’t know who will be hung next, or for what reason… which may arise out of a fresh instance of transgression in the minds of the hangmen, who may one day have their turn.
An “oath to it” (right, it what?) versus a religion of the world which has been cussed and discussed for a couple of thousand years is ludicrous, with speed.
Maybe even dumber than what JMJ selected is: “Diversity is manic, corrosive, unChristian, divisive, weakening, and most of all intolerant.”
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has a very different position:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/cultural-diversity/
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/cultural-diversity/resources/upload/SCDC-Spring-and-Summer-newsletter-2016-4.pdf
As for the legal issues, those go back quite far (nothing new, really):
https://diversity.umich.edu/admissions/archivedocs/q&a.html
http://fox17online.com/2014/04/22/u-s-supreme-court-upholds-michigan-ban-on-affirmative-action/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuette_v._Coalition_to_Defend_Affirmative_Action
– A ban on affirmative action through a state constitutional amendment is permissible under the Constitution of the United States.
Sheri: I didn’t say it wasn’t dumb. I just wanted to give an explanation that would at least have people understand that this was prompted by something, it wasn’t just out of the blue (although that wouldn’t have surprised me).
I had to interview someone who led diversity training for a public utility once. I was young and enthusiastic and thought it was actually about diversity… I found out quickly that it was about discovering that I and people like me were racists, and was truly shocked. I believed things much more readily then and thought it was about learning that people were from different, sometimes surprising backgrounds and that we shouldn’t judge others by what we think we know about them just by looking. HA.
JMJ – Some folks in this forum seem to view you as a harmless, misguided, short-sighted, low-information type who means well. But I see through to your evil non-corporeal core, which seeks to destroy lives through the nasty bigotry of low expectations.
Your kind is responsible for an immense toll of broken lives and shattered dreams, but you can be defeated by the light.
Begone Satan, you have no power here! Stop tormenting this naive non-corporeal with your acidic venom.
FREE JMJ!!!
understand that this was prompted by something, it wasn’t just out of the blue
Neither was the Patriot Act. It was prompted by something, too. But that doesn’t make it a good idea. Hard cases make bad laws. Especially, if the law (or regulation or rule) doesn’t actually address the problem that prompted it. IOW, was the murder due to a lack of diversity? If not, then causing people to take a loyalty oath does nothing to prevent a future murder. It’s already wrong to kill someone.
Why would you want to hire someone who is hostile to cultural diversity to teach at large university, that is 1/4 minority, with international programs, and known for “marketing, psychology, and criminal justice” (according to Forbes review)? It just seems really stupid to me.
JMJ
I agree with OS in that the crime has been done, and Lord willing, justice will be served—and the gestures that people make after to assuage their guilt or appease the crowd may take on (an entirely unintended) life of their own.
Although the example of the Patriot Act isn’t perfect. It was passed, certainly, after the planes flew into the Twin Towers, but it was drafted before, perhaps as early as 1995. (Didn’t Rahm Emanuel say something to the effect, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste…”? You gotta be prepared if you want to set the wheels in motion to take away some civil liberties.)
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/ron-paul-%E2%80%9Cthe-patriot-act-was-written-many-many-years-before-911-and-the-attacks-simply-provided-opportunity-for-some-people-to-do-what-they-wanted-to-do%E2%80%9D.html
and
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/joe-biden-drafted-the-core-of-the-patriot-act-in-1995-before-the-oklahoma-city-bombing.html
Gail: I didn’t mean to imply that you didn’t say it was dumb. I was adding commentary on the etiology of the phenomena and the use of an example of “racist” where race wasn’t really the problem. I guess my wording was awkward.
JMJ: There is a difference between being hostile to cultural diversity and ramming said phenomena down people’s throats. Progressives get out the rod and shove their ideas down everyone’s throats. Few people are actually opposed to the sharing of ideas and many love to learn about other cultures. Even fewer like the idea they have to pledge to not do whatever the college says is wrong—a clear violation of free speech, especially when it comes to political classes. Progressives don’t believe in free speech, it seems. I’d say being known for “marketing, psychology and criminal justice” probably explains the behavior, but it doesn’t mean it’s right. Marketing is notorious for using any and all lies to sell ideas.
It seems stupid to you most probably because you never really look outside your castle and see what is happening in the real world, or if you do, you wear those black glasses that progressives have that label everything they don’t approve of evil and try to jail people for it. The college I went to in the 70’s was integrated and had many different classes. Now, I refuse to support them because they are too busy kissing behinds of the donors and the media trying to prove they are PC. PC is not a good way to live. Eventually, as Briggs noted, the PC crowd devours its own.
Racial diversity for the sake of diversity is by definition a forced quota system. There is no reason to think that a racially diverse group reflecting an exact proportional makeup of a general population is any more desirable as any other team chosen from that same population. Racial discrimination is pretty well guaranteed in this case.
For example, Police Chief David Brown related that, racially speaking, the Dallas, TX police department mirrors the racial makeup of the City of Dallas. If a suspect were to be shot in the line of duty, there is no guarantee that the suspect and the shooting officer would be of the same race. What is the purpose of this racially balanced situation if not to eliminate the chance of this scenario? It is likely that the shooter and the suspect will be of different races.
The purpose of racial diversity adherents is to make sure that racial discrimination works to the adherents advantage. Otherwise, what is the point of forcing racial diversity?
What is this shoving and forcing you guys are talking about? If you don’t like diversity, why would you go out of your way to expose yourself to it in the first place?
JMJ
JMJ: “What is this shoving and forcing you guys are talking about?”
Briggs: ” University of Cincinnati Will Require Diversity Oath of Professors, Staff:”
It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘require’ is.
Bob: My point was that diversity requirements are fluff, designed to make people think things are different than reality says they are. I was not arguing for diversity requirements, just pointing out they are fantasy.
JMJ: Try this—henceforth, all liberals will be REQUIRED to address conservatives as “your majesty” and treat them as royalty. If they do not, they can be sent to sensitivity training. If that fails, they can be fired. All language will conform to the guidelines provided by the conservatives, edited to be sure respect and decorum is maintained. Any liberal using inappropriate language will be censured and possibly reduced to homeless because of their inability to get along in society. There will be no colleges or newspapers that do not adhere to this, all of the tech jobs will be ruled by this ideology, and all of Hollywood will follow these rules. Now, you have no problem whatsoever with this, I’m sure, because it’s “voluntary” and you can avoid it.
Technically, racism could be avoided if the blacks would just stay away from the whites—that’s your argument?? Apartheid? Just avoid all mixing of ideologies if you are uncomfortable with them? That is quite enlightening.
If you don’t like diversity, why would you go out of your way to expose yourself to it in the first place?
Who says we don’t like racial diversity — which is the only sort you folks really mean by that much-abused term? Might could be we don’t like it when posers use others as Tokens to make dog whistles to their peers. And we might well ask how you feel about political loyalty oaths used during the heyday of the Stalinist threat. Just because today we see racists under every bed doesn’t make the response less silly. (Does anyone imagine that a dedicated cadre of CPUSA would hesitate a moment to take such an oath? Does anyone think a similar oath would stop a murderous man from murder?)
Sheri: I didn’t intend to argue against you point. I thought I was addressing the spirit of Brigg’s article. To me, diversity is not fluff, it is malicious. I find your posts interesting and entertaining.
I propose that colleges adopt a third branch of academics in addition to the Sciences and the Arts called the Propagandas. This oath, and the soft sciences and “studies” that allow intellectually deficient students and ideologues receive diplomas can then be rolled into the new category. Whenever an applicant for a job presents his academic credentials, employers can merely look for the words “Bachelor of Propagandas” and send the person back home without wasting any time or inviting the stubborn rot of social “justice” into the company.
Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2016/07/24) - Social Matter
Pingback: The New Old University: The Outline – William M. Briggs