Using Synonyms for Race, College Strives for Diversity

The New York Times ^ | 12/07/2002 (for editions of 12/08/2002) | Jacques Steinberg

[Endeavor]

Oh really? Who died and made you God?

[Old Professer]

(Office assistants who are sworn to secrecy first record the answers for later use to make a statistical profile of applicants.)

I wonder if the assistant's names are something like, Susie Brown, Nancy Black and Marsha White?

[Old Professer]

I thought courts dropped anvils on organizations that defied court rulings like this. Why have they been allowed to get away with it? If SCOTUS stikes-down affirmative action next year, what's to stop the quota mongers from simply side-stepping their decision in just this way?

That is exactly the reason for writing this article, to serve as a blueprint in the event of a ruling to strike. The author clearly implies this here:

The experience of Rice provides a preview of the subtle ways that life would most likely change inside the admissions offices of colleges like Yale, Princeton and Stanford should the Supreme Court decide to impose strict restrictions on affirmative action. Those restrictions could be issued next year, when, the court said this week, it intends to consider two cases challenging racial preferences in admissions at the University of Michigan.

[LibertarianInExile]

What makes you think that government funding of research makes it any less biased, and less likely of there being an axe to grind somewhere? Please. There is more worthless 'research' promulgated by government than there is research with a real payoff for humanity. Everyone knows it. Congress hands out pork to universities like candy at Halloween.

FYI, research is not only possible without government subsidy, without government subsidy, it's a damn sight more likely it would occur in areas where it would be profitable to study, as opposed to what some politician would like to see 'studied' by his favorite hometown school and his ol' buddy professors.

Because something is good and productive does not mean that that government has any reason to be involved in it somehow. Don't assume government subsidy makes anything better. If anything, this whole thread should demonstrate to you how much getting Uncle Sam in the mix makes things worse.

[LibertarianInExile]

What makes you think that government funding of research makes it any less biased, and less likely of there being an axe to grind somewhere? Please. There is more worthless 'research' promulgated by government than there is research with a real payoff for humanity. Everyone knows it. Congress hands out pork to universities like candy at Halloween.

FYI, research is not only possible without government subsidy, without government subsidy, it's a damn sight more likely it would occur in areas where it would be profitable to study, as opposed to what some politician would like to see 'studied' by his favorite hometown school and his ol' buddy professors.

Because something is good and productive does not mean that that government has any reason to be involved in it somehow. Don't assume government subsidy makes anything better. If anything, this whole thread should demonstrate to you how much getting Uncle Sam in the mix makes things worse.

[Endeavor]

Government funded research is key because it funds both basic and application science. My congressman doesn't have a damn thing to do with whether one of my researchers gets a grant from NIH or DOE or NSF. Nor does he/she direct, via some pork program, my scientists research interest areas. My scientists determine their research areas and apply for govt funded grants in the area of their research.

FYI, I'm totally aware that research is possible w/o govt funding. That usually means it is funded from SOMEWHERE, such as private corporations, private non-profits or private individuals. Each of those groups have their biases which can weigh much more heavily on the money usage than does govt funded grants.

I'm not assuming government funding makes "anything" better. I know that government funding is not only essential for good science to get done, but is also smart - If my govt is going to use my tax dollars to fund research, then I want that research to be in areas of both pure and application science - we get incredible discoveries from both.

No one is saying here, least of all me, that govt funding of research is the only way to do it. Quite frankly, in my opinion, the future of science funding is partnerships w/industry. There are inherent problems with that approach but there are inherent positives too.

[LibertarianInExile]

You ARE assuming government funding makes something better. You say it's essential for good "pure" science to get done. Seems to me you assume that no one would do it or pay for it if it weren't for good old Uncle Sam and my taxes. And if your assumption is true, if good "pure" science must have government funding to get done, it's simply amazing that history progressed at all before government.

"Aiiigh! Fire burn...Unk need grant."

But I think the most important part of your comments are where you say "If my govt is going to use my tax dollars to fund research..."

The answer to that logic is simple. Defuse the conditional. Your government and mine SHOULD NOT use your tax dollars or mine to fund ANY research.

The problem is that even though expending my tax dollars on NIH or DOE or any other research may produce productive, useful, wonderful incredible discoveries, it doesn't make those expenditures "necessary and proper." It doesn't make them pass constitutional muster. What is productive, useful, and wonderful is up to me to judge, and you taking my money to spend on programs you consider productive and I care not a whit about is just as evil as me taking your money to spend on booze.

[Desparado]

There is a relatively new website, www.noindoctrination.com that is very revealing as to what the professors are getting away with in college these days. Students are posting evaluations of bias in lecture, class content, and curriculum by class and prof.names. It makes for very interesting reading confirmimg our worst suspicions about what goes on behind closed doors in our Universities now.

[Billy_bob_bob]

So they want "diversity". Fine. Expel all of the white kids. Job done.

That is all that "diversity" means. It means "No white folks wanted here". That is the entire meaning of "diversity". It makes a great code word for "complete genocide of all of those evil, dirty, rotten white people".

Diversity. Coming to every first world country on the planet, and to your neighborhood real soon now. Don't complain or else we'll call you "racist".

[Endeavor]

Read what I wrote - "I'm not assuming government funding makes "anything" better." Emphasis on the word "anything." Maybe you should take a short course in reading.

Govt doesn't have to fund research. You won't benefit from medical discoveries because they won't happen anywhere near the rate they do now. We won't have a clue about atomic subparts and won't be able to devise a Star Wars system.

Yes, we can go back to the Cro Magnon era you seem to favor. I'd prefer not to and am glad that part of my tax dollars go to fund research that is saving lives, making new discoveries which give us more of a clue about the role of genes in disease, and subatomic particles.

And it looks like, Cro Magnon, you're in the minority (thank God) so you get to live vicariously (and benefit directly) from medical and engineering advancements that would otherwise not have happened if we were left to YOUR own devices.

[Desparado]

SORRY!! That address is www.noindoctrination.org

[LibertarianInExile]

I read everything you wrote. Which is why I know full well that you SAY that you don't assume that government funding makes "anything" better. But to explain it again: you do in fact make that assumption. You do in fact assume government funding DOES make "anything" better. You assume that it specifically makes research better. This was the point of the word change. Maybe you should take a long course in logic and a longer one in manners.

Liberals are happy to know that there are plenty just like you, that think the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, and all the rest are vital and necessary--individually. That's how big government gets to be big government. You think your stuff is important and productive, farmers think their stuff is important and productive, and we all get the bill because you're all too busy being important and productive to realize that you're spending OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.

So as long as it doesn't affect your favorite budget or your government funding, you're conservative. As long as you get the taxes as your paycheck or grant funding, it's okay that the money comes from others. Papering it over with words like "saves lives" and "engineering advancements," peppering me with insults like "Cro-Magnon," and attempting to guilt people into thinking you are some one-person crusade for humanity, that all might make you feel better about the fact you're cashing a check drawn on other people's money, but it doesn't stop you from being a hypocrite.

In deciding that you'll spend my money more wisely than I would, you have accepted the liberal viewpoint that us dumb unwashed "Cro-Magnons" simply won't spend our money in the sensible way it should be spent. So you'll just have to do it for me, to larn me `bout them atomic subparts and Star Wars and health research, and if I'm lucky, maybe someday after hicks like me get all book smarted up you'll teach me. And if I don't grow up, well, you'll just use the government to make sure I pay up, anyway.

Go take your silver pieces and watch O'Reilly. You can imagine you're a conservative again.

[Endeavor]

Maybe you've missed the concept of representative government. If you don't like where your representatives allocate your tax dollars, deal with them. Otherwise, stop whining.

[LibertarianInExile]

Oh, I vote absentee, and I'd be willing to bet I've been far more active in representative government than you have, but that's not the problem. The problem is your attempt to sideline the debate, telling me to "stop whining" so that you avoid facing the real issue, which is that you're so happy taking a check and expanding government's intrusion that you forget that you're plain wrong for doing so.

So, you see, I didn't miss the concept of representative government. I just didn't forget that the folks who established our representative government for us intended that government to be for, of, and by the people, not some collective wallet for the fleecing by well-intentioned but smugly self-righteous people like you.