Diversity

UNC-Chapel Hill Admin Only Wants to Discuss Diversity with Students Who Share Its Liberal Biases

How productive could a pro-diversity event be if it was not itself diverse?

|

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Wikimedia Commons

Many college administrators love to tout their commitment to diversity. Implicitly, they almost always mean racial diversity—and said commitment usually takes the form of endless, shallow discussions about how important diversity is.

Top officials at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill are no different; they really want to have a dialogue about diversity, as long as that dialogue only includes people who already share the campus's dominant, left-of-center views on what diversity entails. Chancellor Carol Folt recently met with 40 student leaders to discuss campus diversity issues—but it never occurred to her to include a single libertarian, conservative, or otherwise non-liberal voice, according to The College Fix:

In fact, right-leaning organizations including the UNC College Republicans, Carolina Students for Life, UNC Young Americans for Liberty, the Tar Heel Rifle and Pistol Club, and Christians United For Israel were not even aware of the dinner until the Daily Tar Heel wrote an article about it the next day. …

Alex Johnson, chairwoman of UNC Young Americans for Liberty, a campus libertarian club, said she was "extremely disappointed" the university did not include all types of voices at the dinner.

"It seems to me that only one type of political perspective is being included or recognized on campus while the student body, itself, is actually quite diverse in opinions," Johnson said, according to the Carolina Review.

How productive could a pro-diversity event be if it was not itself diverse?

After hearing these complaints, the chancellor vowed to meet with groups that had not been included the first time around. But the fact that the administration's gut impulse left no room for the inclusion of non-liberals suggests that the chancellor's actual commitment to diversity is skin deep.

NEXT: National Constitution Center announces major new initiative

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But did they invite any athletes studying in the African-American Studies department?

    1. Of course. They got 9 hours’ credit for it.

  2. A “Discussion” on diversity with only those who already agree with the predetermined outcome is actually quite productive to a progressive.

    Remember, to a progressive “discussion” means your agreeing to everything I say

    1. Rasilio is correct.

      1. Krieger-san, my cherry blossoms are wilting!

      2. I love your name. So very much.

        1. You are all invited to my tentacle porn party.

    2. Remember, to a progressive “discussion” means your agreeing to everything I say

      That’s my all-time favorite observation that the left is so blind to.

      And it’s because they live in the pragmatic, reality-based community and people who disagree with them are ideologues.

    3. Soviets had discussions like this with people before they executed them.

    4. Discussion = lecture. If someones says they want a discussion you can be sure that a discussion is the last thing they want.

      1. You can respond only to agree or to admit your guilt in being part of the problem.

      2. I thought the current term for sitting still while being lectured to was “conversation.”

        1. Yeah, I think they’re interchangeable

    5. In other words, when a progressive says sex, he really means masturbation.

      And this ‘diversity’ meeting was a circle jerk.

  3. So a separate but equal dinner for the wrong thinkers?

    1. with separate drinking fountains.

  4. They were being inclusive. You see, inclusive means excluding anyone who might disagree with you. People who would disagree are intolerant, and tolerant people must stamp out intolerance. Or at the very least ignore it.

  5. Why would anyone want to attend a diversity session run by marxist progressive idiots? Unless you are a massochist this is a futile excercise. These people that were left out should consider themselves lucky to have avoided a function where their views would not ever be given any value, let alone considered, and simply make fun of the idiots that did attend.

    1. Why would anyone want to attend a diversity session run by marxist progressive idiots?

      Free breadsticks?

      1. The opportunity to live mock them to their faces

      2. Easy Women

        1. You’d probably have better luck trying to pick up women leaving a Mormon church.

    2. Insomnia.

    3. Yeah, I agree. They were lucky they didn’t have to behold the astounding idiocy that they surely would have been exposed to.

      I was coaxed to going to one of these things once, and that’s the last time, ever. Among the other lunacy that I heard there, the main speaker made this statement:

      “Well, the biggest problem with our organization is that we don’t have enough transsexual employees, that’s a really big problem.”

      You know, to a normal person, that sounds like batshit crazy insanity, because it fucking is!

      1. At that point, just for the sake of absurdism, I would actually indulge him and try to reason, and explain to him that with perhaps 1 in 5000 people being transsexual, you’d need several thousand employees for it to be likely to have one or more TSs. But math is hard.

  6. As a commenter on the Carolina Review link (who attended the conference) explained:

    “For the record, there were not any political groups invited. It wasn’t a conversation about politics, it was about students, and political affiliations have nothing to do with responding to the institutional racism or sexism that makes students feel unsafe on campus.”

    1. responding to the institutional racism or sexism

      Which itself is a political statement/assumption at its very core.

      1. No, no, people who *disagree* with that statement are political. The statement itself is nonpartisan, nonideological common sense.

      2. You’re rejecting her premise. Do you know how very hurtful rejection can be? DO YOU?!?

      3. Does being routinely called a rapist because of one’s genitalia and told not to apply for academic jobs because women and minorities get steep preference constitute institutional sexism and racism?

        Yeah, let’s discuss that.

    2. My head hurts from reading that.

      This is the kind of mindless claptrap that we used to hear from the good old fashioned marxists from E Germany, USSR, China, etc.

      That idiot should be pelted with rotten fruit.

    3. the institutional racism or sexism that makes students feel unsafe on campus

      Ok, so say I show up at one of these meetings, raise my hand and ask to be allowed to make a comment, and I say:

      “You know as a white male libertarian on this campus, I feel unsafe because I am being singled out for targeting by far left feminist hate groups, like yours. Why just last week, I was standing by that fountain on the campus mall, and I looked up and noticed that this fat liberal chick was staring right at my package! I feel fucking unsafe, bitches! What do you intend to do?”

      How do you think that will go over?

      1. Like a fart in a spacesuit.

      2. You only spoke to assert your male dominance over the group and silence female voices. Whatever you said will merely be added to the list of your crimes.

      3. It’ll go over great with people who aren’t precisely Progressive cult members.

        I hear they get pretty vicious. One even punched Glen Beck’s wife. So bring something to protect yourself, if you do it.

        If you’re really so concerned, just dress in drag. She-male is liberal camo.

        1. Or do blackface.

          Second though, may be more convincing if you follow Mitt’s lead and do orangeface.

    4. Which would have led me to ask, “how were the invitees selected?” Which would prove what a filthy racist cis-male I am.

    5. A liberal institution has institutional racism or sexism?

  7. Diversity of thought was a major driver in ancient Greece, Rome, Renaissance Italy, even the U.S. Because all of those had a great deal of interaction with other cultures (including past cultures), other ideas.

    For universities to not understand what kind of diversity is important is a stunning indictment of our culture. It is ideas, actions, and character that matter, not one’s phenotype, place of birth, or family religion.

    1. College campuses are warm, friendly coccoons of political self-satisfaction.

    2. That’s because back then, higher education was devoted to both the advancement of knowledge through original research and the transmission of knowledge to the upcoming generation.

      Now, the mission of the university is to indoctrinate its students to become mouth-frothing zealots in the social justice jihad. As such, deviation of thought is a liability to the success of this endeavor.

      1. We need to start homeschooling college students.

        1. With the rise of online higher education that day is closer than you think.

        2. It’s coming.

        3. Less chance of getting raped.

          1. See? Left-libertarian alliance.

    3. That’s because ideas have to compete with (and sometimes annihilate) each other for the bad ones to be weeded out. The most intelligent society is one that is most open and permissive of the war of ideas.

      Leftists of course hate conflict of any kind; when two entities exist, on must be an oppressor of the other and must be destroyed so there is only one left. Ironically though by stifling this Darwinian ‘war of ideas’ you only increase the likelihood of the war moving out of the halls into the battlefield. It is people who either can’t voice their opinions in public fora or who can’t tolerate others voicing their opinions in public fora who cause wars.

  8. Professors and other employees at the City University of New York’s Graduate Center have been forbidden from addressing students and prospective students with the title “Mr.” and “Ms.” because, campus leaders say, the terms may be offensive.

    Great! And students should be forbidden from addressing faculty and staff with titles like “Dr.” or “Prof.” because fuck education privilege, right?

    *turns to the CUNY faculty senate and only hears crickets*

    Professor Juliette Blevins, a linguistics professor at the graduate center, has voiced reservations about the policy. She told the Wall Street Journal that dropping gender-specific titles may not enhance respect and inclusivity as it purports.

    On the contrary, in some cultures, it is disrespectful to address a person without a salutation, she argued.

    While I appreciate Blevins fighting the good fight, I think she’s overstating the case a bit. For example, when I ask my Chinese and Japanese students to address me by my first name, at first, many of them just add “Teacher” in front as a compromise. And after awhile, they drop “Teacher” as a title.

    1. Why in the world would you do that?

    2. “Comrade” is universal.

    3. They address you as “Teacher Mulatto”?

      That would be epic.

        1. Look, all I ask is that people call me “Your Excellency” and walk backward when leaving my presence. As a trans-Emperor, I think I’m entitled to at least that much.

    4. It all depends on culture. I have some foreign acquaintances that I cannot get to stop addressing me as Mr.. Acquaintances, that is, not close friends or family, that’s different. But when I asked them to stop using my last name and just address me by first name, they then started referring to me as Mr. ‘first name’. I just gave up.

    5. Astounding! The WSJ actually asked someone who knows how language works. Next they’ll be asking real economists about how incentives work.
      Of course, CUNY’s administration didn’t ask Juliette before they implemented the rule.

      OT: For lots of fun read my linguist colleague Dan Jurafsky’s new book on the language of menus: The Language of Food: a Linguist Reads the Menu

  9. Diversity meetings aren’t about discussions, but rather just a change to distribute talking points without a paper trail. Why invite some one who isn’t going to follow the talking points? It’s just plain counter-productive.

    1. Ding ding ding!

  10. As Glen Reynold always said, the opposite of diversity is university. It’s not a place to explore new ideas. It’s a place to be indoctrinated.

    1. i thought that’s what medical school was for.

      1. heh nice.

  11. If success is measured by the buoyancy of the emotional response, you probably want as little conflict and as much agreement as possible.

    And how else would you measure it?

  12. How productive could a pro-diversity event be if it was not itself diverse?

    They mean diversity of skin tone, not diversity of ideas.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.