In “Hard Truths About Race On Campus” (Wall Street Journal, Review, May 7 – 8,
2016, pages C1 & 2 [http://www.wsj.com/articles/hard-truths-about-race-on-campus-1462544543]) Professors Haidt and Jussim seem to miss some observations that might be
additive to their arguments. When I was starting out in business in San Francisco,
activism began on college campuses with the seed being the Vietnam War. That
new Left wanted to bring down those in power (conservative Republicans) or just have irresponsible fun (sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll) but sadly they were
taken seriously. Many college administrators gave in to their demands, and
human nature being what it is, if your demands are fulfilled, you demand more.
And more. The greater Progressive Left figured out that giving the kids what
they demanded would buy allegiance and votes. And it has worked: today, a large
majority of university administrators, instructors and students are Democrats. A
vast voting bloc of something around 21 million college attendees in the 4725-some
institutions of higher education.
One strategy of the Left to gain and retain power has always been the collectivization of individuals (making them
easier to herd) through a divide and conquer strategy. It segments groups by,
say, skin color -- "race" -- sexual choices, gender, net worth, and so
on. It figures out how to get their votes, executes and puts each group in the
shopping bag labeled, Progressive Democrat Voter. Race is one of the groups. At
the same time, the Left wants more and more students (voters), and the way is to make
it easier to get in to college. But to get them in, standards need to be
lowered (“affirmative action”) and classes and grading need to be easier to
keep the students happy. That means continuing to give in to student demands.
But as always the strident activist students seem to speak for all the students
(the collective). And also as usual, the media loves the activists for the
readers and viewers they attract. Summing up, the policies of the left include
affirmative action, easy majors (yes, diversity, gender, ethnic and cultural
studies, that which we used to call "underwater basket weaving.) And easy grading.
Now consider that today the federal
government, through a variety of schemes (including President Obama's takeover
of the student loan industry) is the prime financing entity for higher
education. Remember that the Golden Rule No. 1 is, "Who has the gold makes
the rules." So the federal
government makes the rules and college presidents obey, knowing that
without the gold they would have no institution. What is the goal of the Obama
Democrats running the educational show? Power, gaining and retaining power
through votes. Whatever the student activists want, the financier, the federal
government, and the administrators give in. It all comes together for the
benefit of the Democratic Party at the expense of the nation.
The
Left does not want any assessment or even knowledge of these true goals.
For example, the oppression against climate change "deniers"
is not about global warming, but about the danger of the scientific method itself,
measuring and assessing the Left's various narratives. The authors write:
"such reforms [of affirmative action and diversity training] will fail
to…reduce discrimination and inequality." And "make life more
uncomfortable for everyone, particularly black students." That seems to be
a goal of the Left; if it was all comfortable and everyone got along, the power
of the Left would be marginalized.
Finally,
please consider the actual words and phrases the professors used: marginalized,
racial gaps, welcoming, inclusive culture, sense of ethnic victimization, feel
denigrated or insulted, microaggression, and so on. Each word or concept is
absolutely subjective, undefinable. They are not only impossible to measure,
but each are individualized emotions particular to each student. They cannot be
collectivized. One kid's "microaggression" is different than
another's and, in fact, generally not anything the the microaggressor
wanted. There is nothing rational about any of it that can be measured. The loudest squeak gets oiled.
So colleges must cater to the most
effective advocate or publicized activist with more and more demands. The promised ground of the Left.
The
authors finish with: “The time may be right for a bold college president to
propose a different approach, one based on the available evidence about what
works and what doesn’t. That would be the best way to create a university
community in which everyone feels welcome.” But that could easily risk financial
support from the federal government as well as the student hordes calling for
the resignation of the “bold college president.” There does not seem to be any
solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment