Shut up Tranny.

Of course, the reality is that the pursuit of "excellence" is a sideline in many or even most American institutions of higher learning.

Not even a sideline anymore.

Now somehow, having a "diverse" student body is more conducive to the school's goal than having good educators, innovative thinkers, and cutting edge research departments.

We used to complain that the athletic department was sucking up too much of the university's resources. Now, the diversity mavens are sucking up even more of those resources. At least the athletic department put on shows and sold tickets, attracting attention to the university; at least it made an effort to pay for itself. The diversity mavens simply demand more and more resources amid claims that diversity, just by existing, will make the university "better" -- and that's all that matters.

If you want a fun read about modern campus and the diversity mavens, along the lines of Tom Wolfe's The Bonfire of the Vanities, pick up Campusland by Scott Johnston. Like Wolfe's Bonfire, it's a bit predictable and kinda slow to start, but still a decent beach read.

Oh, and jj, get a new schtick. The one you've got going is old and lame.

Abigail Thompson, chair of the math dept at UC Davis, posted a powerful argument against universities requiring diversity statements for faculty appointments -- the latest thing in academia ...

I wonder what her next job is going to be, after her contract isn't renewed.

"The diversity mavens simply demand more and more resources amid claims that diversity, just by existing, will make the university "better" -- and that's all that matters."

Fred Reed said it for me last year:

"“Affirmative action” means hiring people because they can’t do the job well. Near-synonyms are “diversity,” meaning groups that cannot do the job well, and “inclusiveness,” which means seeking people who you know cannot do the job well. These underpin American society, and have ruined education. For some time the sciences seemed less susceptible to the prevailing enstupidation because mathematics would present an impenetrable barrier to the insufficiently bright. This, astonishingly, is changing. The sciences are being dumbed down to –are you surprised?– spare the feelings of included affirmative diversity."

Make no mistake: lowered standards means lower performance.

"Make no mistake: lowered standards means lower performance."

And make no mistake: that's the goal. Everything that's happening today, everything that happened in the 20th century, is the result of European pseudo-intellectuals and narcissists back in the 19th century who looked at how the existing aristocracy and said to themselves, "You know what's unjust about that? What's unjust is that I'm not an aristocrat." Their goal, then, became to overthrow the existing power structures and replace them with new structures led by themselves. As liberalization and the rise of the middle class was sweeping through Europe, these people wanted to turn the clock back to the Middle Ages.

I've read Marx. One thing that comes through loud and clear -- in fact, it seems to be the ultimate driving force behind Das Kapital -- is his regret at having been born several centuries too late to be the leader of a peasant revolt. His Romantic image of himself as the Savior of the Peasants justifies his lust for absolute power, garbed in pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo about the need economy and ownership of the means of production. That stuff is all just window dressing. It's clear that Marx himself didn't take it very seriously. What he wanted was power.

The entirety of modern Western civilization pisses off the Left. They see it all as an unjust imposition on what they view as their birthright, and they are determined to tear it all down. All of the "philosophy" of socialism, every word of it, is just recruiting slogans. The inner circle knows what they really want to do, and building a utopia (for anyone other than themselves) isn't it.

If Marx had only been born 50 years earlier, and in France, he could have been fed to the Reign of Terror. That's were socialism goes, that's where it always goes: blood and death.

"misguided"

I'm really getting tired of that word.

And "hurtful".

UC loyalty oath of the 1950's: "I am not a member of, nor do I support any party or organization that believes in, advocates, or teaches the overthrow of the United States Government, by force or by any illegal or unconstitutional means, that I am not a member of the Communist Party."

"Eventually thirty-one faculty members were fired over their refusal to sign. Among them was David Saxon, an eminent physicist who later became the president of the University of California."

"Whatever our views on communism, most of us today are in agreement that the UC loyalty oaths of the 1950s were wrong."

So eventually people who were not communists, and who were opposed to the violent, illegal, unconstitutional overthrow of the U.S. government, came to agree that the UC loyalty oaths were wrong; and people who were communists and/or unwilling to agree not to support the violent, illegal or unconstitutional overthrow of the government, like the eminent physicist David Saxon, were able to get positions of power in the UC. And look where we are today. I wonder where we'd be if no one had started agreeing that the UC loyalty oaths of the 1950's were wrong.

In an ideal world everyone would be free to believe and peacefully live their lives as they choose, and no one would support the use of government or any other form of force and violence to impose their beliefs on people they disagree with. But that ideal is probably just as unrealistic as the liberal, leftist, socialist utopia fantasy. In the real world if right-wing conservatives don't actively dominate and oppress left-wing liberals, then left-wing liberals will actively dominate and oppress right-wing conservatives. You can't really be a libertarian. Liberal, left-wing socialists won't have it any other way.

Cousin Dave's comments are right on. One thing I've noted is that the Left seems consumed with envy for those who worked hard and succeeded. It seems to them "unfair". They want to be comfortable without working hard--which is what socialism seems to promise but never delivers. This is where Warren's war on millionaires comes from: envy.

The only way to pass the loyalty test is to be hard left. A normal person, even one with an inter-racial marriage and friends from all races, cannot come up with the right verbiage to satisfy them. I tried and cannot do it without vomiting (and lying). The Left views this as simply being a good person but they are wrong: their view is strictly political, treats blacks like servants without the right to have opinions, and promotes policies that hurts the people they claim to help. It is also leading to resegregation of colleges.

"One thing I've noted is that the Left seems consumed with envy for those who worked hard and succeeded."

This is certainly true of many, perhaps most, of them. But there are also more than a few who *have* worked hard and *have* succeeded. I know several of these individuals.

Important to not oversimplify the motivations of the opposition.

Meh, just get an online degree and save yourself the indoctrination.

Frankly, when I see Expensive University and Robust Greek Life on Campus as qualifications, I start looking for a better candidate.

I fully expect more fancy pedestrian bridges to collapse in Florida and elsewhere, thanks to such nonsense as this rubric.

And who is this John Jacob idiot, anyway, Amy?