Discriminating against people based on their race is racist. Discriminating against people based on their sex is sexist. It doesn't matter which groups they favor, it is wrong and illegal.
Yes, it is true that the US federal government codified, unfortunately, the use of these terrible terms, which no one can define because they are meaningless.
Do you believe that universities like Princeton should give admissions preference to applicants from lower-income families, first-generation college students, or those facing economic hardships as long as they don't discriminate on the basis of race?
Certainly there should be grants for those from lower income families and others as you suggest. But they must be held to a grade standard, or else a) they will be lost and will flounder, or, worse, b) the teaching standard will lower toward them, at the intellectual expense of the other students.
The question was about giving admissions preferences, not financial assistance (grants). If financial assistance is needed, it should be offered only after admission has been granted based strictly academic merits.
Be aware that TAG seems to be attempting to get agreement on some admission discrimination based on financial need or lack of opportunity. Which would then open the door to admission discrimination based on race.
Not really. I was genuinely curious where people draw the line. But I understand why you would suspect I was laying a trap -- many universities are trying to skirt the new laws by using socioeconomic status as a marker for race. I just have a hard time believing in meritocracy. When it comes to elite private universities, there has never been admissions " based on strictly academic merits." Is that GPA? Schools are vastly different and grade inflation is real. Is it the SAT? A timed multiple choice test that many affluent parents "game" by paying for prep and getting doctors to diagnose ADHD. Is it writing skills in the essay? Good luck with AI. Rich parents pay consultants. So unless you can create a world in which some element of pure merit can be identified & cleanly divorced from the privileges of economic class, the whole "academic merit should decide" is what I would call naive and Utopian. Don't get me started on athletes and legacy admissions.
Why would we want to have some genius Black kid excluded from Princeton because he can't afford it? Why would we want to have some genius Asian kid excluded from Princeton because he can't afford it? Why would we want to have some genius Latino kid excluded from Princeton because he can't afford it? Why would we want to have some genius White kid excluded from Princeton because he can't afford it?
Schools should want to have excellent students. A this point, however, the system is so screwed up by woke subjectivity that no one really knows what true excellence or genius look like. Claudine Gay?
I find it hard to answer your question because the problem is more nuanced. I work at at state school where >60% are Pell grant-eligible students. They are wonderful to work with but require a high level of commitment. I wish the students would come better prepared for college-level work. Can someone please look into reforming K-12 to a decent level?
Except "merit," right? But meritocracy has become a corrupt ruling ideology in the past 25 years. It defends the privileges of elite technocrats, undermines community solidarity, ignores the role of luck/fortune, and breeds arrogant, disconnected rulers. Here's what I have been reading on this:
You are defining meritocracy in today's terms I am talking about meritocracy as in the founding fathers times even better the Greek and Roman times today's meritocracy is a disguise aristocracy
European states were mostly undisguised aristocracies until the end of WWI. Ancient Greece and Rome were profoundly unequal societies where rule by "the best and brightest" didn't allow for equality of opportunity -- no women, slaves or foreigners need apply. Aristotle believed certain people were "natural slaves." Nostalgia won't work. The only "meritocracy" worth talking about is the kind that will work within a modern democratic state in the 21st-century. The GI Bill worked wonders even if it didn't include everyone -- it allowed the bright sons of factory workers and farmers to get a real education. That was radical! Texas's top 10% rule is another good model. But the best solution is to properly fund our public universities so that anyone who wants to attend university can afford it -- this obsession with "merit" and the Ivy League is distorting our vision. Did you know that an 18-yr old could go to UC Berkeley back in the 1970s and pay for it with a summer job?
Take the good of a system and forgo inequality, their culture was successful until it became corrupted. Women we not allowed at war for obviously when survival of the fittest is the rule, but women became the power behind the throne,the slave could work to be a master. Social mobility in Rome and Greece was certainly possible but you have to be a citizen first and yes you could become a citizen by purchasing it or earning it and for us allegiance to the constitution
One thing that will have the dealt with is tenure. Not the subject of this article, but important to dismantling the DEI system. In the social sciences and the humanities, most of the professors are left wing and they have jobs for life. And they control hiring of other professors. It’s self-perpetuating.
People don’t stumble into PhDs in literature, philosophy, or history by accident. They are usually less motivated by market outcomes, really into reading and discussing ideas (like power and justice), and they are skeptical of traditional authority, so this didn't happen as a some top-down conspiracy to keep conservatives out. It's basic personality sorting. Right-wing students go to law, economics, think tanks, media careers, business, etc. Try to find viewpoint diversity among investment bankers, private equity, or quant funds. Maybe I am wrong, but each niche attracts its own type.
I do agree that once an institution starts to lean left, a suffocating monoculture develops & reinforces itself -- and conservative scholars have been excluded or censored. That's not good for universities.
You are wrong. There are thousands, of conservative academics structurally, and frontally, discriminated against. I have a PhD in political science, I know. Other than law, I haven't the slightest interest in the fields you mentioned. I love the Great Books, and can teach rings around most others with those works. But they won't let me do it, officially speaking.
I get it. You are a conservative scholar who wants to teach Great Books and is not interested in economics or finance, but that doesn't mean my sorting theory is invalid. You are right that a mono-culture exists, and exclusion and censorship are real, but the leftist tilt of the academy is a product of historical forces and generational change. The more recent DEI stuff is a top-down effort by administrators, not faculty.
What Christopher Eisgruber doesn't recognize (blindly or willingly) is that for every person who gets a DEI boost there is a person more qualified who has been deprived. He is the victimizer of that person. Jewish students pay tuition for their Princeton education. When they are blocked from class or the library, they are getting less than what they paid for and that's fraud. They too are being victimized by Princeton's failure to require civilized treatment of all their students. And when it comes to equalizing underrepresented populations on the faculty, about what percentage of the faculty are conservative? 1%? You know, the 77 million people who just elected our President and majorities in Congress. Please. Enough with the virtue signaling.
Do these DEI universities realize that minorities qualified to be accepted on an equally qualified basis as white students DONT WANT to go to DEI universities no matter what the university reputation once was before DEI. Princeton appears to be headed downhill—qualified minorities are looking ELSEWHERE!! AVOID PRINCETON!!
Turds like Eisgruber don't care about minorities and women. They're paid well to overthrow white civilization. They pretend DEI/affirmative action is for uplifting blacks but it's not. Disenfranchising whites is the goal and that will eventually destroy civilization.
We don't have to shut it down, but neither do the taxpayers have to pay for it. And we should enforce the law. I hope the DOJ steps in. Unlikely the State will. The relationship with Princeton is too cozy.
What a mixed up individual. Princeton was once a Theological University. DEI in itself is racists. There are more blacks going to Harvard & Ivy League schools. The conservative writers of the constitution had black men who were part of the history & were law makers. It’s the racists who claim they are not are racists. The democrat Marxist are very racists & use it to create revolution. Obama & Biden were very racist blaming the police.
Any reason not to boycott that former fine University? There are plenty of first class Universities to choose from. No need to support one that hates you
In a very real sense, I would prefer that the Trump administration not take on these schools directly, but trumpet the work of reporters like Chris Rufo who expose Princeton, Harvard and Yale, for their explicit inversions of the goal of racial equality by engaging in reverse racism. Let them go along the path that they have chosen, continue to tell the story of what is happening, but don't do anything else. Why? I prefer to let the market take care of this and if we let it, it will do so efficiently and effectively over five to ten years, depending upon how extreme these school's racial policies become and how well that is reported upon. It is hard for us to imagine a time in which anyone would NOT want to attend Harvard, Yale or Princeton, but if we let them proceed as they are proceeding, this will happen. Parents of outstanding white students and asian students and, eventually, of other ethnicities and races, if well-informed will decide against sending their student to these schools because the experience will become increasingly harrowing. At the same time, employers will see the diminution of quality of their graduates. Whereas a degree from one of these schools in the humanities, sciences or engineering, was a ticket to great opportunities in the marketplace, as these schools evolve in this direction, employers will look elsewhere for their new hires and the value of the degrees will drop, precipitously. (This has already begun). As the value of the degree from these schools drop, the likelihood of top students seeking to attend will also drop. Put simply I trust the Invisible Hand to work in its usual manner, if we just let it do so, with no government interference. At the same time, the government should tax endowments over $1,000,000,000 and it should scrutinize new research proposals, to be funded by NIH, NSF, DoD, DOE, for the inclusion of programs that do nothing to advance science itself. Let the free market work, and don't do anything that sets a precedent that we will later come to regret.
I don't want my tax monies going to law-breaking institutions. It's that simple. Pull the federal funding permanently and let them sink or swim in the market.
I’m not sure why my tax $$ should go to ANY institution, law breaking or not. Let them all sink or swim in the market. For god sakes, they charge $85k per year! Why do they need my money?
If the universities had to back student loans they would have to get rid of useless departments and administrators; really teach the classics and essentials --and tuitions would come way down in cost.
These are the same people who then go on to keep the swamp nice and full. They are not affected by a free market in any way. Drain the swamp then these ideas may have merit.
How dare we taxpaying peons challenge our liege lords? The day I proposed to my wife, we drove down to Princeton to see the musical 1776 at McCarter Theater. Now they reject the whole 1776 principle.
I did not meant length of weaving and just because I'm a slow reader but I meant content all that could be said in one paragraph. You cannot come back discrimination with more discrimination only merit based can abolish discrimination
It’s important for people to speak out against this type of discrimination. The reason it continues is that whites are afraid to speak out for fear of being called “white supremacist” and men are afraid to speak out for fear of being called “misogynist” and everyone is afraid to speak out for fear of being called racist. And for the most part there are “white supremacist” and “misogynist” who do speak out and people don’t want to be included in that group.
Until main stream people speak out this discrimination will continue.
This is the same excuse that Europe uses to say why they have not, did not, and do not speak up against their governments that have allowed in so much immigration from Muslim countries that the countries are no longer recognizable. Fear of being called racist-- so that rape gangs are not held responsible or covered in the news, nothing close to free speech- if a citizen complains online- the police come to their door to arrest them.
Conservatives in the USA have been called so many names, just for being Conservative. Speak up. Do not fear being called a name.
As per his ideology, as a white male Eisgruber has no place to be a leader of the university. Maybe we should start a campaign demanding that he walks the walk and steps down to restore racial and gender equity! I wonder what his response would be!
DEI has become the new religion of the secular society and a mortal threat to western civilization. The Trump administration is fighting a religious war, not just a legal battle. The entire establishment, especially higher education and the judicial system, has been wired to perpetuate the new religion. The only way to win this war is by either reviving the old religion(s) or creating new ones. We need literarily a new Enlightenment movement. Jordan Petersen and Joe Rogan discussed the challenges and outlined some preliminary steps to cure the culture of this malice: https://youtu.be/QBEZhjnZTks?si=H0mDgc58gDQUkZVY
We were found in as a meritocracy and we have trade away from this principle into currently what they call d e i which started as in the 1960s equal opportunity. This was needed but now has long gone out of his useful utility
King Soopers in Colorado has product identifiers next to price tags: Woman Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, Local Business. How about just make the best product and let the market decide?? Ok…it’s no Princeton, but the concepts are the same. Do NOT attempt to guilt me into buying a product. It wont work. The virtue signaling alone will turn me off - even if it IS the best product 🤦♀️. Except local…I’m a super sucker for local.
Yes, merit should be the deciding factor in such things. Especially in education. People go to Yale or Harvard or whatever because having that on their degree gets them better paying jobs. Unfortunately, these days it doesn't mean that they are better educated.
We need to consider that some of the people that go to this type of institutions go as a trust fund baby. This individuals just need to complete a degree and they'll have their future guaranteed. But there's a certain percentage of them that actually are productive. I do believe that you don't have to go to an institution of this qualifications to actually make it into the professional world.
When it comes to this subject. Consider the need of value versus cost and you will see that these businesses in general do not provide any additional value and they're very costly. Move on to the business that offers you the best value for your money that way this ideology place businesses with disappear
I quit donating after the Jewish classics professor got fired. Princeton's net zero zeal makes students believe that consensus trumps observation and measurement. This won't serve the world well.
All I can say is: There was nothing much new about DEI; it's been around for decades under the name "Affirmative Action". And no, it's not going away just because Trump says so; your only reliable resource in this is yourself. How can you actively do something about Woke organizations and their "DEI"? You can STOP WORKING FOR THEM: "Workplaces to avoid if you are white, male, or straight": https://daveziffer.substack.com/p/workplaces-to-avoid-if-you-are-white
Exactly! Social engineering like DEI is a tenet of communism. Turds like Eisgruber are paid well to overthrow white civilization. They pretend DEI/affirmative action is for uplifting blacks but it's not. Disenfranchising whites is the goal and that will eventually destroy civilization.
This is going to require legal action, perhaps by the federal government, to rectify. Get them in discovery; get them on the stand and get them to admit that they did indeed discriminate against whites, because in their view current discrimination is the only way to rectify past discrimination. In other words, two wrongs make a right - I don't see a judge or a jury agreeing with that
I agree with you, except for one thing: yes, there are leftist activist judges these days who have discarded their law books and think only of advancing the marxist agenda. So yep, there are judges out there who would ignore obvious statutory principles and go with political sentiment. Hey, look at what the SCOTUS just did, for example!
Discriminating against people based on their race is racist. Discriminating against people based on their sex is sexist. It doesn't matter which groups they favor, it is wrong and illegal.
What is race?
Whatever the US federal government says it is.
Yes, it is true that the US federal government codified, unfortunately, the use of these terrible terms, which no one can define because they are meaningless.
Do you believe that universities like Princeton should give admissions preference to applicants from lower-income families, first-generation college students, or those facing economic hardships as long as they don't discriminate on the basis of race?
Hi, TAG.
Certainly there should be grants for those from lower income families and others as you suggest. But they must be held to a grade standard, or else a) they will be lost and will flounder, or, worse, b) the teaching standard will lower toward them, at the intellectual expense of the other students.
The question was about giving admissions preferences, not financial assistance (grants). If financial assistance is needed, it should be offered only after admission has been granted based strictly academic merits.
Be aware that TAG seems to be attempting to get agreement on some admission discrimination based on financial need or lack of opportunity. Which would then open the door to admission discrimination based on race.
Not really. I was genuinely curious where people draw the line. But I understand why you would suspect I was laying a trap -- many universities are trying to skirt the new laws by using socioeconomic status as a marker for race. I just have a hard time believing in meritocracy. When it comes to elite private universities, there has never been admissions " based on strictly academic merits." Is that GPA? Schools are vastly different and grade inflation is real. Is it the SAT? A timed multiple choice test that many affluent parents "game" by paying for prep and getting doctors to diagnose ADHD. Is it writing skills in the essay? Good luck with AI. Rich parents pay consultants. So unless you can create a world in which some element of pure merit can be identified & cleanly divorced from the privileges of economic class, the whole "academic merit should decide" is what I would call naive and Utopian. Don't get me started on athletes and legacy admissions.
Thank you Diana, a really reasonable and succinct response to a rather naive question.
Sorry Tag naive was not a fair way to describe you question.
As long as it starts with merit.
Why would we want to have some genius Black kid excluded from Princeton because he can't afford it? Why would we want to have some genius Asian kid excluded from Princeton because he can't afford it? Why would we want to have some genius Latino kid excluded from Princeton because he can't afford it? Why would we want to have some genius White kid excluded from Princeton because he can't afford it?
Schools should want to have excellent students. A this point, however, the system is so screwed up by woke subjectivity that no one really knows what true excellence or genius look like. Claudine Gay?
I find it hard to answer your question because the problem is more nuanced. I work at at state school where >60% are Pell grant-eligible students. They are wonderful to work with but require a high level of commitment. I wish the students would come better prepared for college-level work. Can someone please look into reforming K-12 to a decent level?
That's the base definition of discrimination. If we are going to have a meritocracy we cannot apply any litmus test to admissions
Except "merit," right? But meritocracy has become a corrupt ruling ideology in the past 25 years. It defends the privileges of elite technocrats, undermines community solidarity, ignores the role of luck/fortune, and breeds arrogant, disconnected rulers. Here's what I have been reading on this:
https://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Merit-Whats-Become-Common/dp/0374289980
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Decadent-Society/Ross-Douthat/9781476785257
You are defining meritocracy in today's terms I am talking about meritocracy as in the founding fathers times even better the Greek and Roman times today's meritocracy is a disguise aristocracy
European states were mostly undisguised aristocracies until the end of WWI. Ancient Greece and Rome were profoundly unequal societies where rule by "the best and brightest" didn't allow for equality of opportunity -- no women, slaves or foreigners need apply. Aristotle believed certain people were "natural slaves." Nostalgia won't work. The only "meritocracy" worth talking about is the kind that will work within a modern democratic state in the 21st-century. The GI Bill worked wonders even if it didn't include everyone -- it allowed the bright sons of factory workers and farmers to get a real education. That was radical! Texas's top 10% rule is another good model. But the best solution is to properly fund our public universities so that anyone who wants to attend university can afford it -- this obsession with "merit" and the Ivy League is distorting our vision. Did you know that an 18-yr old could go to UC Berkeley back in the 1970s and pay for it with a summer job?
Take the good of a system and forgo inequality, their culture was successful until it became corrupted. Women we not allowed at war for obviously when survival of the fittest is the rule, but women became the power behind the throne,the slave could work to be a master. Social mobility in Rome and Greece was certainly possible but you have to be a citizen first and yes you could become a citizen by purchasing it or earning it and for us allegiance to the constitution
One thing that will have the dealt with is tenure. Not the subject of this article, but important to dismantling the DEI system. In the social sciences and the humanities, most of the professors are left wing and they have jobs for life. And they control hiring of other professors. It’s self-perpetuating.
People don’t stumble into PhDs in literature, philosophy, or history by accident. They are usually less motivated by market outcomes, really into reading and discussing ideas (like power and justice), and they are skeptical of traditional authority, so this didn't happen as a some top-down conspiracy to keep conservatives out. It's basic personality sorting. Right-wing students go to law, economics, think tanks, media careers, business, etc. Try to find viewpoint diversity among investment bankers, private equity, or quant funds. Maybe I am wrong, but each niche attracts its own type.
I do agree that once an institution starts to lean left, a suffocating monoculture develops & reinforces itself -- and conservative scholars have been excluded or censored. That's not good for universities.
You are wrong. There are thousands, of conservative academics structurally, and frontally, discriminated against. I have a PhD in political science, I know. Other than law, I haven't the slightest interest in the fields you mentioned. I love the Great Books, and can teach rings around most others with those works. But they won't let me do it, officially speaking.
I get it. You are a conservative scholar who wants to teach Great Books and is not interested in economics or finance, but that doesn't mean my sorting theory is invalid. You are right that a mono-culture exists, and exclusion and censorship are real, but the leftist tilt of the academy is a product of historical forces and generational change. The more recent DEI stuff is a top-down effort by administrators, not faculty.
"more recent DEI stuff is a top-down effort by administrators, not faculty."
Not at all wholly true...
They are less market-motivated. But they used to be motivated by actual scholarship rather than ideology. A sad shift.
Self licking lollipop.
What Christopher Eisgruber doesn't recognize (blindly or willingly) is that for every person who gets a DEI boost there is a person more qualified who has been deprived. He is the victimizer of that person. Jewish students pay tuition for their Princeton education. When they are blocked from class or the library, they are getting less than what they paid for and that's fraud. They too are being victimized by Princeton's failure to require civilized treatment of all their students. And when it comes to equalizing underrepresented populations on the faculty, about what percentage of the faculty are conservative? 1%? You know, the 77 million people who just elected our President and majorities in Congress. Please. Enough with the virtue signaling.
Do these DEI universities realize that minorities qualified to be accepted on an equally qualified basis as white students DONT WANT to go to DEI universities no matter what the university reputation once was before DEI. Princeton appears to be headed downhill—qualified minorities are looking ELSEWHERE!! AVOID PRINCETON!!
💯
Turds like Eisgruber don't care about minorities and women. They're paid well to overthrow white civilization. They pretend DEI/affirmative action is for uplifting blacks but it's not. Disenfranchising whites is the goal and that will eventually destroy civilization.
Shut. It. Down.
Defund the ivys.
I am thoroughly tired of the Jew-as-oppressor lie.
We don't have to shut it down, but neither do the taxpayers have to pay for it. And we should enforce the law. I hope the DOJ steps in. Unlikely the State will. The relationship with Princeton is too cozy.
The federal government should not be involved in funding indoctrination (education).
That's the bottom line; taxpayers should not be forced to pay for all this indoctrination.
What a mixed up individual. Princeton was once a Theological University. DEI in itself is racists. There are more blacks going to Harvard & Ivy League schools. The conservative writers of the constitution had black men who were part of the history & were law makers. It’s the racists who claim they are not are racists. The democrat Marxist are very racists & use it to create revolution. Obama & Biden were very racist blaming the police.
Exactly.
Any reason not to boycott that former fine University? There are plenty of first class Universities to choose from. No need to support one that hates you
In a very real sense, I would prefer that the Trump administration not take on these schools directly, but trumpet the work of reporters like Chris Rufo who expose Princeton, Harvard and Yale, for their explicit inversions of the goal of racial equality by engaging in reverse racism. Let them go along the path that they have chosen, continue to tell the story of what is happening, but don't do anything else. Why? I prefer to let the market take care of this and if we let it, it will do so efficiently and effectively over five to ten years, depending upon how extreme these school's racial policies become and how well that is reported upon. It is hard for us to imagine a time in which anyone would NOT want to attend Harvard, Yale or Princeton, but if we let them proceed as they are proceeding, this will happen. Parents of outstanding white students and asian students and, eventually, of other ethnicities and races, if well-informed will decide against sending their student to these schools because the experience will become increasingly harrowing. At the same time, employers will see the diminution of quality of their graduates. Whereas a degree from one of these schools in the humanities, sciences or engineering, was a ticket to great opportunities in the marketplace, as these schools evolve in this direction, employers will look elsewhere for their new hires and the value of the degrees will drop, precipitously. (This has already begun). As the value of the degree from these schools drop, the likelihood of top students seeking to attend will also drop. Put simply I trust the Invisible Hand to work in its usual manner, if we just let it do so, with no government interference. At the same time, the government should tax endowments over $1,000,000,000 and it should scrutinize new research proposals, to be funded by NIH, NSF, DoD, DOE, for the inclusion of programs that do nothing to advance science itself. Let the free market work, and don't do anything that sets a precedent that we will later come to regret.
I don't want my tax monies going to law-breaking institutions. It's that simple. Pull the federal funding permanently and let them sink or swim in the market.
I’m not sure why my tax $$ should go to ANY institution, law breaking or not. Let them all sink or swim in the market. For god sakes, they charge $85k per year! Why do they need my money?
If the universities had to back student loans they would have to get rid of useless departments and administrators; really teach the classics and essentials --and tuitions would come way down in cost.
I agree. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for anyone's anything, especially college indoctrination!
These are the same people who then go on to keep the swamp nice and full. They are not affected by a free market in any way. Drain the swamp then these ideas may have merit.
Yes, exactly. Parents and students will avoid Ivys that fostered DEI, knowing the quality of talent has gone elsewhere.
How dare we taxpaying peons challenge our liege lords? The day I proposed to my wife, we drove down to Princeton to see the musical 1776 at McCarter Theater. Now they reject the whole 1776 principle.
I did not meant length of weaving and just because I'm a slow reader but I meant content all that could be said in one paragraph. You cannot come back discrimination with more discrimination only merit based can abolish discrimination
It’s important for people to speak out against this type of discrimination. The reason it continues is that whites are afraid to speak out for fear of being called “white supremacist” and men are afraid to speak out for fear of being called “misogynist” and everyone is afraid to speak out for fear of being called racist. And for the most part there are “white supremacist” and “misogynist” who do speak out and people don’t want to be included in that group.
Until main stream people speak out this discrimination will continue.
I speak out 100% of the time. Silence is complicity.
This is the same excuse that Europe uses to say why they have not, did not, and do not speak up against their governments that have allowed in so much immigration from Muslim countries that the countries are no longer recognizable. Fear of being called racist-- so that rape gangs are not held responsible or covered in the news, nothing close to free speech- if a citizen complains online- the police come to their door to arrest them.
Conservatives in the USA have been called so many names, just for being Conservative. Speak up. Do not fear being called a name.
As per his ideology, as a white male Eisgruber has no place to be a leader of the university. Maybe we should start a campaign demanding that he walks the walk and steps down to restore racial and gender equity! I wonder what his response would be!
Equity is the definition of discrimination
Hitler was not an Aryan...
Hitler as it stands today is a creation of whatever you want to believe. In the original is the l evil
DEI has become the new religion of the secular society and a mortal threat to western civilization. The Trump administration is fighting a religious war, not just a legal battle. The entire establishment, especially higher education and the judicial system, has been wired to perpetuate the new religion. The only way to win this war is by either reviving the old religion(s) or creating new ones. We need literarily a new Enlightenment movement. Jordan Petersen and Joe Rogan discussed the challenges and outlined some preliminary steps to cure the culture of this malice: https://youtu.be/QBEZhjnZTks?si=H0mDgc58gDQUkZVY
We were found in as a meritocracy and we have trade away from this principle into currently what they call d e i which started as in the 1960s equal opportunity. This was needed but now has long gone out of his useful utility
This is not about Trump is about returning to our core values. We were founded as a
King Soopers in Colorado has product identifiers next to price tags: Woman Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, Local Business. How about just make the best product and let the market decide?? Ok…it’s no Princeton, but the concepts are the same. Do NOT attempt to guilt me into buying a product. It wont work. The virtue signaling alone will turn me off - even if it IS the best product 🤦♀️. Except local…I’m a super sucker for local.
Yes, merit should be the deciding factor in such things. Especially in education. People go to Yale or Harvard or whatever because having that on their degree gets them better paying jobs. Unfortunately, these days it doesn't mean that they are better educated.
We need to consider that some of the people that go to this type of institutions go as a trust fund baby. This individuals just need to complete a degree and they'll have their future guaranteed. But there's a certain percentage of them that actually are productive. I do believe that you don't have to go to an institution of this qualifications to actually make it into the professional world.
The Ivy Leagues are losing their luster and reputation-Proof = applications are way down this year.
When it comes to this subject. Consider the need of value versus cost and you will see that these businesses in general do not provide any additional value and they're very costly. Move on to the business that offers you the best value for your money that way this ideology place businesses with disappear
Ho, ho. Eishruber gotta go! Just another institution to which, as an alumnus, I have never donated a dollar.
I quit donating after the Jewish classics professor got fired. Princeton's net zero zeal makes students believe that consensus trumps observation and measurement. This won't serve the world well.
All I can say is: There was nothing much new about DEI; it's been around for decades under the name "Affirmative Action". And no, it's not going away just because Trump says so; your only reliable resource in this is yourself. How can you actively do something about Woke organizations and their "DEI"? You can STOP WORKING FOR THEM: "Workplaces to avoid if you are white, male, or straight": https://daveziffer.substack.com/p/workplaces-to-avoid-if-you-are-white
Well the communists are really good at lying.
Exactly! Social engineering like DEI is a tenet of communism. Turds like Eisgruber are paid well to overthrow white civilization. They pretend DEI/affirmative action is for uplifting blacks but it's not. Disenfranchising whites is the goal and that will eventually destroy civilization.
This is going to require legal action, perhaps by the federal government, to rectify. Get them in discovery; get them on the stand and get them to admit that they did indeed discriminate against whites, because in their view current discrimination is the only way to rectify past discrimination. In other words, two wrongs make a right - I don't see a judge or a jury agreeing with that
I agree with you, except for one thing: yes, there are leftist activist judges these days who have discarded their law books and think only of advancing the marxist agenda. So yep, there are judges out there who would ignore obvious statutory principles and go with political sentiment. Hey, look at what the SCOTUS just did, for example!