Posted on 08/22/2013 10:52:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
Dear Chancellor Miller:
On May 9, you announced that you were initiating a process to "rethink" our university's approach to diversity and inclusion. Then, on August 16, you announced that eleven individuals agreed to serve on your Chancellor’s Committee on Diversity and Inclusion. For the following reasons, I find the composition of the committee to be deeply problematic.
1. Your inclusion committee is 0% white male. I have written three books dealing with campus diversity issues. I have been invited to speak on issues of diversity (largely ideological) at 78 college campuses. Over the last ten years, I have written nearly 900 columns, the majority of which have dealt with diversity issues. I am certainly among the most qualified people you could have invited to serve on your diversity committee. But you did not reach out to me. There is but one explanation for this. You have deliberately excluded white males from your discussions of inclusion. If there is a non-racist or non-sexist explanation for the fact that your committee is 0% white male, I'd like to hear it.
2. Your inclusion committee is 82% female. Over a decade ago, our school launched, at taxpayer expense, a new Women's Resource Center. It was strange, given that the student body was then 68% female. Put simply, we need to stop pretending that women are a minority here at UNC-Wilmington. If you want to be inclusive then you should include more men on your inclusion committee. Men are the real minority here at UNC-Women Everywhere.
3. You need to be sensitive to religious diversity. If you do a little quick research on RateMyProfessors.com you will find something interesting. There is one professor you placed on the committee who teaches in the area of religion. A student recently accused him of grading students down for "answering too religiously." The anonymous accusation doesn't amount to guilt. But ask yourself whether Professor Burgh would be on the committee if he were even once accused of race or gender insensitivity, instead of religious viewpoint discrimination. Then think about why this country was established. It wasn't founded on principles of racial or gender identity politics. It was founded on principles of religious freedom.
4. One cannot support both inclusion and domestic terrorism. Bill Ayers was an education professor who used to make pipe bombs for the purpose of blowing up his political enemies. He stopped doing that when some of his fellow domestic terrorists blew themselves up in the process of making one of the pipe bombs. Just a few years ago, one of our education professors signed a petition in support of Ayers, the unrepentant domestic terrorist. You have now placed that professor on the inclusion committee. Of course, we should all agree that blowing up one's political enemies tends to run contrary to the spirit of tolerance and inclusion that you wish to promote. So I would respectfully suggest that you should have appointed a professor who opposes domestic terrorists, rather than one who publicly supports them.
5. There are no white students on your committee. There are two Hispanics and one black student on your committee. One works with El Centro Hispano. One works with the Black Student Union. Oddly, however, you don't have any white students on the committee who also work with the White Student Union, which, of course, does not exist. That's probably why you excluded white students from your efforts to be inclusive. You didn't want any white students asking tough questions like "hey, where's the white student union?" Or "where is El Centro Gringo?"
Your announcement letter continues, saying "We must not waiver in our commitment to create a diverse and inclusive campus environment. I believe most of us agree there is much more to be achieved in these areas." This is just nonsense, Gary. What you are saying here is that you think most people agree with you that there should be more spending in the area of "diversity and inclusion." But you only arrive at such conclusions because people who diverge from your opinion are excluded from your committees, and your circle of influence. That is how bad decisions are made. You should ask students if they are willing to suffer through more tuition increases to fund further expansion of diversity initiatives and see what they say. But make sure you don't exclude all white students from the survey like you excluded them from the committee.
Your letter concludes with your assertion that "It is extremely important that this be a fully transparent and inclusive process." Does this mean you will let me attend the first meeting of your new Chancellor's Committee on Diversity and Inclusion? Additionally, will you let me ask tough questions and publish the committee's answers in my weekly column?
If you won't answer my last two questions in the affirmative, then I ask that you at least be honest about what you're really up to, here. In that case, you could just hang a sign outside your meetings saying "Inclusion in Progress: No White Males Allowed."
I remember the scholarship offered a few years ago ...it was very specific....it was only for “Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, African Americans, Middle Easterners,Southeast Asians, Chinese, and Latinos”....didn’t really want to come out and say..”just no whites” so they had to list every single group....
(*who agrees with us. Not you, conservatives... or christians or jews.)
Whites need to exclude this school from their list of choices for a good education.
I think now blacks have a preposterously huge number of govt jobs and I think this will only get worse....
of course the latinos flooding our nation will give them a run for the money.....maybe it'll be fun just to sit back and watch...
“I can’t wait to read the chancellor’s reasoned response.”
The letter will simply be ignored while efforts are made to entrap the poster in wrongdoing or forcibly remove him from campus as “dangerous” under whatever they can cook up. Traditionally, the Soviet Marxist had their enemies declared “insane,” so I would expect that approach. Or perhaps nebulous allegations that he makes people feel “uncomfortable” or “threatened” without any specifics.
You see, in a campus with free-flowing ideas and concepts, only government-approved thought and comment is actually allowed.
Many government jobs were a stable, low-paid dumping ground for the incompetent in the past. As the power and size of government has increased, as public sector unions have increased their grip, and as minority preferences have become anti-white policies, our former public servants have increasingly become our minority masters. And, they love the power they have.
Wow, a scholarship was actually available to every racial group imaginable EXCEPT whites?
How could that not be considered racist? Have the leftists become so blind?
To understand what the Left means by promoting "diversity," see Understanding "Diversity".
You will never understand what has been going on, unless you trace this attack on the uniqueness of people, back to those who have promoted it over the decades. It combines fanatic egalitarianism with the quest of those, who hate the nation concept, for "World Government. It explains the Leftist slant on immigration; some of the more bizarre aspects of our foreign policy; and the one size fits all approach to education.
What it is not is altruistic or idealistic. Surrendering heritage is not an ideal to any decent or reflective person. And that means any decent or reflective person, regardless of their diverse heritage. It is not about better relations between nations, tribes or communities; it is all about reducing resistance to building a human equivalent to an ant hill. (Incidentally, it is basically the approach that Stalin employed after World War II to stamp out resistance in the Baltic States & the Ukraine.)
William Flax
Colleges are socialism in action. They are all headed by socialists. They have been able to put all their marxist wishes into action. Distribution of wealth. Taking money from the productive and giving it to the indolent or politically connected.
Tuition is extremely high. But only the sons of rich White people pay full tuition. On the other end, the lesbian Spanish-speaking Black Religion of Peace transgender pays nothing.
This is true. Just as, with the coming exclusion of whites from any voice in power, policy-making, or governing, in this country and globally, the whole world will be variations of Detroit, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Haiti, etc. The only thing which will mitigate this will be Asians, particularly the Chinese, filling up the power vacuum at the very top of the power structure, and all those who are left (if whites are extinct by that time) can rest assured that they carry no equivalent of “white guilt”, far from it.
I’m confused about something: In point 1, Mike says there is 0% white males on the committee, then in point 4 says Bill Ayers is on the committee. Last I checked, Terrorist Ayers is a white male. Did I miss something?
Yes. In point 4 Mike said a professor that admired Bill Ayers was on the committee.
“Have the leftists become so blind?”
No, they have ALWAYS been that blind. From day one. Their ability to hide it is necessarily slipping.
Or globally. Whites are the minority globally already. Others are racing to white countries in order to be nearer to their “oppressors” whom they kicked out of their own countries, which then reverted to the mean, so they can overwhelm their white oppressors in their own countries until they turn those historically white countries into the third world hellholes from which they fled.
Hurray, once whites are extinct in those countries, the whole world can be a third world hellhole except for the pockets where their Chinese overlords, who harbor not a shred of “Asian guilt”, will live.
Yes, thank you. I tripped over the pronoun, my fault. I was surprised because Mike is usually dead on with his facts and logic.
Please keep up with the class. He wrote that a professor who *supported* Ayres was on the committee.
There... fixed it.
Ouch! that’s gonna leave a mark!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.