Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

bruto said:
It's standard for right wing negotiation. Ask for something completely wrong, and accuse them of stubborn bad faith if they don't agree to half of it.
Click to expand...
The university can always turn down the funding if it doesn't like the terms. It's not like the university is entitled to that money, no questions asked.
 
theprestige said:
Yes, exactly. That's exactly how asking for other people's money works. Always has, always will, always should.

You seem to think private universities are entitled to taxpayer money without taxpayer oversight.
Click to expand...
I don't seem to think it. I'm going to outright say it. Education is a human right (UDHR Article 26). Universities should be public, and free. They should not be subject to ideological controls over what they can and cannot teach. Universities - including foreign universities as you well know - have been defunded because they do not conform to the American administration's ideological opposition to so-called "DEI". That is ideological restriction. That is fascism. You're not allowed to teach unless you teach what we want you to teach and nothing else.
theprestige said:
The university can always turn down the funding if it doesn't like the terms. It's not like the university is entitled to that money, no questions asked.
Click to expand...
If I were ruler of the universe I would give them that money, no questions asked. I would pay for it by taxing the rich a fraction of their wealth and reducing military funding by a fraction of its budget. Neither would even notice the cost, and we would have an educated and prosperous population that isn't subjected to fascist authoritarian ideology.
 
arthwollipot said:
Negotiation? An academic institution negotiating with non-academics on how to run academia?

In any other field that would be ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Not in any other field receiving government funding. Universities can do whatever they want (within the law), but the government can attach whatever strings it wants (within the law) to federal funding. That means that some universities might need to make a choice.
 
arthwollipot said:
If I were ruler of the universe I would give them that money, no questions asked. I would pay for it by taxing the rich a fraction of their wealth and reducing military funding by a fraction of its budget. Neither would even notice the cost, and we would have an educated and prosperous population that isn't subjected to fascist authoritarian ideology.
Click to expand...
Actually, you would have a population that is brainwashed by left-authoritarian ideology.
 
jt512 said:
Actually, you would have a population that is brainwashed by left-authoritarian ideology.
Click to expand...
Call it what you want. I don't care. You would have free health care, free education for your children, and free social programmes to help people with disabilities, all paid for by the wealthiest 1% of the population. If you think those things are bad, then you're a bad person. End of story.
 
arthwollipot said:
Call it what you want. I don't care. You would have free health care, free education for your children, and free social programmes to help people with disabilities, all paid for by the wealthiest 1% of the population. If you think those things are bad, then you're a bad person. End of story.
Click to expand...
Is every thread now just an opportunity for you to pontificate on your utopian vision?
 
jt512 said:
Is every thread now just an opportunity for you to pontificate on your utopian vision?
Click to expand...
No, just this one. And you know the best thing? My "utopian" vision is completely possible if there is the political will for it. That's the world that I would want for my children, and that's the world that I advocate for. A world that recognises that there is strength in diversity. That there is fairness in equity. That there is justice in inclusion. And that makes these benefits accessible to all.

But those with money and power aren't interested in that. All they are interested in is money and power. They prefer conformity, because when everything's the same, it's easier to control. They prefer injustice, because justice and equity for all costs them and they would do anything they can to avoid that cost. They prefer segregation because when people band together, they are a threat to authoritarians.
 
jt512 said:
Is every thread now just an opportunity for you to pontificate on your utopian vision?
Click to expand...
arthwollipot said:
No, just this one.
Click to expand...
Just the DEI utopia thread, ok.
arthwollipot said:
And you know the best thing? My "utopian" vision is completely possible if there is the political will for it. That's the world that I would want for my children, and that's the world that I advocate for. A world that recognises that there is strength in diversity. That there is fairness in equity. That there is justice in inclusion. And that makes these benefits accessible to all.

But those with money and power aren't interested in that. All they are interested in is money and power. They prefer conformity, because when everything's the same, it's easier to control. They prefer injustice, because justice and equity for all costs them and they would do anything they can to avoid that cost. They prefer segregation because when people band together, they are a threat to authoritarians.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess if you think that DEI is the answer to everything, then anything can be on topic in a thread about DEI.

Funny thing is, come to think of it, DEI on US campuses hasn't led to utopia. It has led to mass antisemitism; racial and ideological discrimination in admissions and hiring; anonymous, Stasi-like denunciations; quashing of free speech and open inquiry; punishment of faculty, staff, and students on ideological grounds; and fear and self-censorship to an extent never before experienced in America, even during the McCarthy era. There is a wee disconnect between the utopia you think DEI should have produced and the Orwellian dystopia it actually has produced.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
"Give us your money. Don't ask questions. You're not qualified to understand what we do with your money. Your elected representatives aren't qualified to inquire into our stewardship of your money. Just give us your money and shut up. We'll take care of the rest."
Click to expand...

What inquiry has the Trump administration conducted into the colleges facing funding cuts in which they have refused to participate?
 
theprestige said:
"Give us your money. Don't ask questions. You're not qualified to understand what we do with your money. Your elected representatives aren't qualified to inquire into our stewardship of your money. Just give us your money and shut up. We'll take care of the rest."
Click to expand...
What does cultural diversity in college curriculum have to do with grants for scientific research into cancer cell development????
 
theprestige said:
Yes, exactly. That's exactly how asking for other people's money works. Always has, always will, always should.

You seem to think private universities are entitled to taxpayer money without taxpayer oversight.
Click to expand...
Yes, taxpayers have the right and responsibility to make sure their donations to colleges for cancer research are spent correctly. Has nothing to do with the college having courses dealing with cultural diversity.
 
theprestige said:
Yes, exactly. That's exactly how asking for other people's money works. Always has, always will, always should.

You seem to think private universities are entitled to taxpayer money without taxpayer oversight.
Click to expand...

What oversight has been conducted and who conducted it? Where can I access their findings?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
The university can always turn down the funding if it doesn't like the terms. It's not like the university is entitled to that money, no questions asked.
Click to expand...

What terms did the universities agree to before accepting the funding that they are now violating?
 
theprestige said:
The university can always turn down the funding if it doesn't like the terms. It's not like the university is entitled to that money, no questions asked.
Click to expand...
Since when can a federal grant be retroactively amended to include new requirements regarding college curriculum and hiring practises? Do the grants contain such stipulations?
 
jt512 said:
Not in any other field receiving government funding. Universities can do whatever they want (within the law), but the government can attach whatever strings it wants (within the law) to federal funding. That means that some universities might need to make a choice.
Click to expand...

What “strings” were attached to this funding? And by what legal process were these “strings” determined?
 
johnny karate said:
What “strings” were attached to this funding? And by what legal process were these “strings” determined?
Click to expand...
Bet you $100 that the grants include NO language requiring certain academic or hiring policies or allowing for retroactive changes to the conditions of the grants. Grants are likely a legal agreement, and they cannot simply be changed years later.
 
jt512 said:
Just the DEI utopia thread, ok.

Well, I guess if you think that DEI is the answer to everything, then anything can be on topic in a thread about DEI.

Funny thing is, come to think of it, DEI on US campuses hasn't led to utopia. It has led to mass antisemitism; racial and ideological discrimination in admissions and hiring; anonymous, Stasi-like denunciations; quashing of free speech and open inquiry; punishment of faculty, staff, and students on ideological grounds; and fear and self-censorship to an extent never before experienced in America, even during the McCarthy era. There is a wee disconnect between the utopia you think DEI should have produced and the Orwellian dystopia it actually has produced.
Click to expand...

DEI has created an"Orwellian dystopian". What an absolutely insane take.
 
arthwollipot said:
I don't seem to think it. I'm going to outright say it. Education is a human right (UDHR Article 26).
Click to expand...
Leaving aside whether or not one agrees with that, it's only a right "in the elementary and fundamental stages." There is no human right to a university education under the UDHR. That would be stupid.
arthwollipot said:
Universities should be public, and free.
Click to expand...
But they aren't. If they were actually public, then the government wouldn't just be able to attach strings to funding, they could directly control those universities and simply impose their will. The universities wouldn't even have the option of forgoing public funding for independence.
arthwollipot said:
They should not be subject to ideological controls over what they can and cannot teach.
Click to expand...
All public institutions are subject to ideological control. I doubt you even consider that a bad thing, provided it's the correct ideology. For example, the idea that racial discrimination is bad is ideological. I agree with that ideology, and maybe you do too, but it's still ideological. And I want public institutions to operate according to that principle. The law requires them to.
arthwollipot said:
If I were ruler of the universe I would give them that money, no questions asked.
Click to expand...
Thank god you are not. That's about the stupidest thing you could ever do. When people are given money no questions asked, they tend to waste it.
 
Hercules56 said:
Bet you $100 that the grants include NO language requiring certain academic or hiring policies or allowing for retroactive changes to the conditions of the grants. Grants are likely a legal agreement, and they cannot simply be changed years later.
Click to expand...
The grants themselves don't need to. Federal law already imposes many requirements directly on grant recipients. For example, Title IX prohibits sex discrimination by any educational institution receiving federal funding.
 
arthwollipot said:
I don't seem to think it. I'm going to outright say it. Education is a human right (UDHR Article 26). Universities should be public, and free. They should not be subject to ideological controls over what they can and cannot teach. Universities - including foreign universities as you well know - have been defunded because they do not conform to the American administration's ideological opposition to so-called "DEI". That is ideological restriction. That is fascism. You're not allowed to teach unless you teach what we want you to teach and nothing else.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that the US is obligated to fund foreign universities?
arthwollipot said:
If I were ruler of the universe I would give them that money, no questions asked. I would pay for it by taxing the rich a fraction of their wealth and reducing military funding by a fraction of its budget. Neither would even notice the cost, and we would have an educated and prosperous population that isn't subjected to fascist authoritarian ideology.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should ensure that Australia adopts your approach in its entirety before you authoritatively attempt to force a different country to do what you want it to do? You know - the thing you're complaining about the US doing?
 
arthwollipot said:
I don't seem to think it. I'm going to outright say it. Education is a human right (UDHR Article 26). Universities should be public, and free. They should not be subject to ideological controls over what they can and cannot teach. Universities - including foreign universities as you well know - have been defunded because they do not conform to the American administration's ideological opposition to so-called "DEI". That is ideological restriction. That is fascism...
Click to expand...
US Taxpayers have no moral or legal obligation to fund foreign colleges. We also have a right to require that foreign universities we DO fund abide by certain human rights. Like gay rights, equality for women, etc. That is not "fascism".
 
arthwollipot said:
Call it what you want. I don't care. You would have free health care, free education for your children, and free social programmes to help people with disabilities, all paid for by the wealthiest 1% of the population. If you think those things are bad, then you're a bad person. End of story.
Click to expand...
This is an absurdly dictatorial assertion. It's downright authoritarian to take such a hardened "my way or the highway" approach. You're demonstrating the behavior you claim to oppose.

The US has free education. We have free social programs to help people with disabilities. We have free health care for those who can't afford it, and many would like to have universal basic health care as an entitlement.

But this idea that all of these things should be paid for by a tiny little segment of the population is nutty. Progressive taxation that recognizes the marginal value of money, sure - most people support that as reasonable and appropriate. But your approach turns a tiny segment of people into slaves to the majority, and that's a bad idea.
 
Ziggurat said:
The grants themselves don't need to. Federal law already imposes many requirements directly on grant recipients. For example, Title IX prohibits sex discrimination by any educational institution receiving federal funding.
Click to expand...
That's not what the most recent war against Harvard and other colleges is about.
 
arthwollipot said:
No, just this one. And you know the best thing? My "utopian" vision is completely possible if there is the political will for it. That's the world that I would want for my children, and that's the world that I advocate for. A world that recognises that there is strength in diversity. That there is fairness in equity. That there is justice in inclusion. And that makes these benefits accessible to all.
Click to expand...
Great. How about you start with your own country instead of trying to force a foreign country to bow to your desires?
arthwollipot said:
But those with money and power aren't interested in that. All they are interested in is money and power. They prefer conformity, because when everything's the same, it's easier to control. They prefer injustice, because justice and equity for all costs them and they would do anything they can to avoid that cost. They prefer segregation because when people band together, they are a threat to authoritarians.
Click to expand...
You're just packed full of mind reading, aren't you?
 
Ziggurat said:
The grants themselves don't need to. Federal law already imposes many requirements directly on grant recipients. For example, Title IX prohibits sex discrimination by any educational institution receiving federal funding.
Click to expand...

What requirements were violated in these real-world cases and how were the violations determined?
 
Hercules56 said:
That's not what the most recent war against Harvard and other colleges is about.
Click to expand...
Not just Title IX, but violations of federal law, absolutely. For example, federal law requires publicly funded institutions to not racially discriminate. Harvard has done so.
 
Ziggurat said:
Not just Title IX, but violations of federal law, absolutely. For example, federal law requires publicly funded institutions to not racially discriminate. Harvard has done so.
Click to expand...
How did Harvard discriminate on the basis of race? When did the DOJ make such an accusation and based on what evidence did the DOJ make such a determination?
 
Ziggurat said:
In admissions. There's a whole history of lawsuits over the issue, it's pretty well demonstrated.
Click to expand...

Great, if it's so well demonstrated, can you point me to the findings of the Trump administration that they used to make the determination that Harvard violated federal law and should have their funding rescinded?
 
Last edited:
I was under the impression that whatever criteria were used for the grants were met when the grants were made, so unless the institution has changed to violate those criteria, the grants should stand. Retroactive changing of the criteria should not affect them. As far as we've seen, the threat to defund colleges has been based on reinterpretation of ideas, often pretty vague, not on the colleges' conduct. The allegation seems to be that the government violated what Trump now believes the principles should have been, not that the colleges violated the principles that were applied by the government at the time.

Which is to say that I agree with Johnny Karate and Hercules56 on this one.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
That's not what the most recent war against Harvard and other colleges is about.
Click to expand...
It is primarily about Title VI, which requires schools receiving federal funds "to provide all students, including Jewish students, a school environment free from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, including shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics."

Source: U.S: Dept. of Education Office for Civil Rights
 
jt512 said:
It is primarily about Title VI, which requires schools receiving federal funds "to provide all students, including Jewish students, a school environment free from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, including shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics."

Source: U.S: Dept. of Education Office for Civil Rights
Click to expand...
If this is about violations of Title VI why isn't the Justice Department investigating and pressing charges?
 
bruto said:
I was under the impression that whatever criteria were used for the grants were met when the grants were made, so unless the institution has changed to violate those criteria, the grants should stand. Retroactive changing of the criteria should not affect them. As far as we've seen, the threat to defund colleges has been based on reinterpretation of ideas, often pretty vague, not on the colleges' conduct. The allegation seems to be that the government violated what Trump now believes the principles should have been, not that the colleges violated the principles that were applied by the government at the time.

Which is to say that I agree with Johnny Karate and Hercules56 on this one.
Click to expand...
That's absurd. It creates a perverse incentive to be temporarily compliant to get the grant, and then be flagrantly noncompliant thereafter with impunity. Can you imagine if the EPA or the SEC regulated their fields the same way?
 
jt512 said:
It is primarily about Title VI, which requires schools receiving federal funds "to provide all students, including Jewish students, a school environment free from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, including shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics."

Source: U.S: Dept. of Education Office for Civil Rights
Click to expand...

What investigation was done to make this determination and where can I access the details and results of this investigation?
 
johnny karate said:
What investigation was done to make this determination and where can I access the details and results of this investigation?
Click to expand...
DOJ doesn't seem fit to press charges or do an investigation? Something smells fishy.

Its not up to to the President to decide on his own when Title VI is violated.
 
theprestige said:
That's absurd. It creates a perverse incentive to be temporarily compliant to get the grant, and then be flagrantly noncompliant thereafter with impunity. Can you imagine if the EPA or the SEC regulated their fields the same way?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you think you read in bruto's post but that is not at all what it states. Maybe go back and read it again.
 
Hercules56 said:
DOJ doesn't seem fit to press charges or do an investigation? Something smells fishy.

Its not up to to the President to decide on his own when Title VI is violated.
Click to expand...
Government regulators rarely need a criminal or civil judgement, to make a finding of noncompliance and impose sanctions on their own authority.

Conversely, if a regulated entity believes the regulator is overstepping its authority, they can always seek a judicial injunction or other such remedy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom