Student Rejected for Diversity Post Because He is "White"

PC "Diversity" does not mean helping people of other cultures to acclimate to Western European Christian culture.

PC "Diversity" means destruction of Western European Christian culture. And those of us who pay attention to history know from whence it cometh.

reply to post by TDawgRex


The strange part about this story is not that Piotrkowski was passed over for the job, but that someone flatly stated that he was being discriminated against. The reality is that any employer can discriminate against a potential hire for any reason and get away with it so long as they don't state their reasoning out loud. If someone does not want to hire a minority and they simply don't hire them they are in the clear. If they say "I'm not hiring you because you are a minority" they are guilty of discrimination.

A friend of mine was born with a partial right arm, and despite this is quite capable of his hands-on trade. He told me that every job interview involves dodgy questions about his ability to physically perform the job that are certainly in reference to his prosthetic arm but are always careful not to directly never mention it. If an employer asked him "Can you perform the job duties?" then they are within the limits of the law. If they asked "Can you perform the duties with that prosthetic?" they would be in violation. He is not a lawyer and he may be mistaken about the intricacies of the law, but he is somewhat informed on the laws pertaining to employment discrimination due to his situation.

The article only quotes one member of the diversity committee saying that Piotrkowski was passed over due to race and sexuality. This does not mean that the entire board felt the same way, or that this was their "official" reason for passing him up. The article does not give the context of the quote, such as whether it was made during the meeting or outside of it. I'm not sure that it would matter, because that person did apparently state their bias in the presence of others. I imagine that Ian Coley, the one who made the discriminating statement, is probably in some hot water now with the university because of his inability to keep his trap shut.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Sphota

 

Originally posted by Sphota
How is being a "white" male not part of diversity?

The need for "diversity education", "diversity instruction" or a "diversity inclusion team" comes from minorities being oppressed and discriminated against. Who were their oppressors and discriminators? White males. I think it's pretty easy to understand.

I would LIKE for the pendulum to just swing toward the middle and stop dead center, but that's not how it historically works. A women's rape group would not likely have their president be a male, no matter how sympathetic he was to their cause.

Valid, but what if it was a man who was raped or a transgender victim?

(EDIT: I don't want to derail. This was e first thought that came to mind when you said that. I'm leaving it there for its validity, but lets not make it the point of my counter argument, which follows)

Leaving that aspect, man and woman is an easily definable dichotomy.

No such dichotomy exists in ethnic terms. There is no such thing as "white" (I've tried to make this point a million times, and quite frankly I'm getting tired of it). Whether you view it from the angle of white supremacy or from the angle of "white privilege", there is no such thing as white. By taking someone like me, or this kid, and saying, "you can't do that, you're "white", it will do one of two things:

1) polarize us, pushing us out of the dialogue (counter productive for those who say they are "inclusive"), pushing us toward the side that says it's ok, embrace your "whiteness", we've got your back against those other people.

2) Reinforces my so-called "white guilt" ...that I, the individual, should take responsibility for a club that I was not asked to join, never held a membership card, and frankly don't get born with a horse in that race...I'm just told that because I "look" a certain way I'm expected to assume my responsibility duly.

How is that any different, at the most fundamental level, than saying something like "all Black people are X"?

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
PC "Diversity" does not mean helping people of other cultures to acclimate to Western European Christian culture.

PC "Diversity" means destruction of Western European Christian culture. And those of us who pay attention to history know from whence it cometh.

Western European Christian culture IS, by its own definition a product of this process. Likewise, if Western European culture wanted to remain the amalgam that it was in the 15th century, it would have behooved them to not colonize other, non Western European Christian cultures, which could make (and many have) your same argument in the reverse: that they have had their culture displaced, slowly, by Western European Christian culture.

reply to post by Sphota


I believe you are trying to break down the issue to purely technological terms and forgetting about the other aspects of diversity.

For many years discrimination was based on absolutely nothing other than how you looked. If you appeared white you were given more priviledge in society. These diversity groups are made to combat that specific issue by pursuing policies of integration into this so called "white society".

To have an individual that represents the very thing you are there to try and change, even if only in appearance, could be counter-productive.

We may say he is the best person for the job but that only applies when you look at qualifications, it doesn't take into consideration the appearence aspect of the problem. Can this man really represent diversity?

I think he would do just fine but many people don't want him and they do have a point they can justify.

Originally posted by Sphota
Valid, but what if it was a man who was raped or a transgender victim?

Then they would be in a different group. I'm speaking in general terms, of course.

There is no such thing as "white"

That's just semantics. I'm Scotch-Irish and Native American, but I'm white. It's a general term.

1) polarize us, pushing us out of the dialogue (counter productive for those who say they are "inclusive"), pushing us toward the side that says it's ok, embrace your "whiteness", we've got your back against those other people.

It only polarizes you if you refuse to understand their position and "take offense", allowing it to polarize you. I am not an ethnic minority, but I understand their position, even though I can clearly see it's not ideal. And until the situation IS ideal, I can still do what I can to be inclusive and "preach" tolerance and acceptance of those who are different than me.

2) Reinforces my so-called "white guilt"

If you have "white guilt", that's really YOUR issue, not theirs. It's not their job to assure you or alleviate you of your misplaced feelings of guilt. To me, "white guilt" is worthless and should be dealt with and reasoned out by you, not them. I carry no guilt for being white and neither should you (if you are).

The 'diversity' thing is swinging too far the other way.
It's kind of fighting against itself ... fighting against it's own purpose.


A few weeks back we were taking a tour of the college where my daughter will be going to school. Lots of folks were milling around in the cafeteria. The 'diversity' head (a black fella) was running around to all the non-white students saying ... 'diversity meeting on the second floor ... make sure you come'. All the non-whites were invited. My daughter .. who is very clearly hispanic .. was polite but just rolled her eyes when the fella left. It had the feel of a 'anyone except white people' club. She didn't bother going to the 'diversity' meeting .. since it was exclusive and not inclusive of everyone (her words) I thought .. good for her... she gets it!!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


That's what I'm saying...and many people allow it to polarize them...

And I'm Italian, French, Scottish, and Irish.

On my Italian side, I'm also Semitic, Sephardic Jew, Celtic, Gothic, Turkic...and Sephardic Jew (so, Semitic again) in my case.

On my French side I'm Celtic, Gothic, Norman, Frankish...and Native American in my case.

On my Irish and Scottish side Im also Danish, Frankish, Gothic, English, Norman,

...my ancestors painted in caves in Southern Europe and were killed and raped by other ancestors who rode their horses out of the Central Plains of Asia and the Caucasus mountains...and that was all before the Roman Empire.

White as an ethnic term is non existent, by clinging to it we get nowhere. If you are talking about the dominant culture, fine, but call it by other terms, because if my supposed ethnic purity vis-a-vis my skin color and perceived ethnic make-up are supposed to, on the one side give me brownie points, and on the other tear me down with guilt, then I don't get it. I don't feel privileged...

I think you and I are basically of the same mindset, but we have different ways of resolving the issue.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

2) Reinforces my so-called "white guilt"

If you have "white guilt", that's really YOUR issue, not theirs. It's not their job to assure you or alleviate you of your misplaced feelings of guilt. To me, "white guilt" is worthless and should be dealt with and reasoned out by you, not them. I carry no guilt for being white and neither should you (if you are).

I'm using myself as an example. I don't personally have any guilt. I should have used "one's" instead of my. I've done nothing wrong and yet I've seen how stereotypes can be played out by any group towards any other.

I agree, it SHOULD not be the case that anyone assumes white guilt just as it should not be the case that any other group assume any other label based on how others categorize them.

reply to post by Sphota


You shouldn't think of white in as an ethnic term.

It is about appearance. That is the main issue with diversity. Those that look a certain way have been treated differently and the diversity groups try and combat that issue.

You can justify your heritage as being this or that all day long but it doesn't matter in the end. We have seen this in minority cultures also, where lighter skinned folk are treated differently than darker skinned ones.

The famous blue eyes, brown eyes experiment shows what the diversity groups have been trying to combat.

reply to post by Sphota

Originally posted by Sphota
White as an ethnic term is non existent, by clinging to it we get nowhere. If you are talking about the dominant culture, fine, but call it by other terms,

Call us the "dominant culture" around a bunch of white people and see how open to discussion they are. I am using "white" as a general term, meaning the historically dominant culture in the US.

...because if my supposed ethnic purity vis-a-vis my skin color and perceived ethnic make-up are supposed to, on the one side give me brownie points, and on the other tear me down with guilt, then I don't get it.

Being white isn't "supposed to" give you brownie points, nor is it "supposed to" make you feel guilty. Who are you listening to?

I don't feel privileged...

Privileged people usually don't. If you want to understand white privilege, have yourself made up as a black male for a day and check out people's response to you. Or watch this video...

I think you and I are basically of the same mindset, but we have different ways of resolving the issue.

I think so, too.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Sphota

 

Originally posted by Sphota
How is being a "white" male not part of diversity?

The need for "diversity education", "diversity instruction" or a "diversity inclusion team" comes from minorities being oppressed and discriminated against. Who were their oppressors and discriminators? White males. I think it's pretty easy to understand.

I would LIKE for the pendulum to just swing toward the middle and stop dead center, but that's not how it historically works. A women's rape group would not likely have their president be a male, no matter how sympathetic he was to their cause.

And what if that man (in your example) had been a victim of rape himself? What if he was a gay man that was a victim of rape? Wouldn't that qualify him to be involved in a rape crisis group, or maybe even lead it? IF not, then it boils down to a discrimination based upon his gender.

See how both sides need to be taken into account, and blanket statements are irrelevant?

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Sphota

 

I believe you are trying to break down the issue to purely technological terms and forgetting about the other aspects of diversity.

For many years discrimination was based on absolutely nothing other than how you looked. If you appeared white you were given more priviledge in society. These diversity groups are made to combat that specific issue by pursuing policies of integration into this so called "white society".

To have an individual that represents the very thing you are there to try and change, even if only in appearance, could be counter-productive.

We may say he is the best person for the job but that only applies when you look at qualifications, it doesn't take into consideration the appearence aspect of the problem. Can this man really represent diversity?

I think he would do just fine but many people don't want him and they do have a point they can justify.

But I say that "white" society is neither white nor necessarily a society that should be approximated. Like some sort of bad socialist utopia, all inclusive, like Starship troopers (the film version) where everyone is in Argentina, but it is clearly our culture. This was on purpose by the director, not because it was cheesy. He was aiming his criticism right at globalism, the dominant culture, "White Society", America...whatever name we choose to give it.

Look, I know where you and Benevolent Heretic are coming from....TRUST ME. I know these arguments like the back of my hand. I was in tolerance groups and peer counseling workshops in high school, I was in similar groups in college, worked for the ESL department, was an RA, part of LGBTQ alliances. I've lived in other countries, namely Brazil, where these same issues are playing out, regarding race/ethnicity, social-class, inclusivity, tolerance, etc, and "race" over there ain't so cut and dry as we try to make it here in the US (assuming that's where you all are).

I just think that the "Black people" don't need to be made more white to fit in better. They are fine the way they are. But they need to understand the dominant culture. Likewise, those of us considered "white" (both by other people who also consider themselves white - or people who are not considered white) should not pretend that this same old coke-Pepsi, Walmart-Target, Republican-ADemocrat argument works anymore.

reply to post by TDawgRex

I don't know anything about this specific university, but I've seen some similar decisions. One of the most common I've seen is with Native Australians. You simply can't put your average white person near Native Australian organizations in most cases without it being uphill.

I worked for a Native Australian group as an editor for a really short time and some persons just weren't very nice about it, and my decisions weren't respected. Colleagues have had similar issues.

Persons in that culture are brought up from an early age to believe white people took their land and culture from them ... Except white more indicates your position on the equator not your history. I'm not that white culture.

I don't believe white people are as assailed as we sometimes think, the fist racial hate crime lodged in Australia was actually against an Aboriginal woman. That said, I was completely incapable of working under those conditions, and a lesser skilled person who was Aboriginal was more effective than me in the future.

Not sure what the answer is. Yes having a person in a diversity position who is a member of the 75+% can become ineffective and challenging, but I think the correct member of that 75+% can and should create important links between minority and majority.

I've never accepted work from Native Australian organizations since that bad experience. I guess that was the end of Pinke / Native Australian diplomatic relations which seems against the whole point?

reply to post by Krakatoa

Originally posted by Krakatoa
And what if that man (in your example) had been a victim of rape himself? What if he was a gay man that was a victim of rape? Wouldn't that qualify him to be involved in a rape crisis group, or maybe even lead it? IF not, then it boils down to a discrimination based upon his gender.

I agree with you. You don't seem to "get" that I'm saying I don't AGREE that the white male should be excluded from leading the diversity group, but I UNDERSTAND it.

Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

I imagine that Ian Coley, the one who made the discriminating statement, is probably in some hot water now with the university because of his inability to keep his trap shut.

I hope so.

If the kid is not qual'ed for the job, by all means he should not get it. But if he is qual'ed, then he should.

That said, I would hire a good natured people person, regardless of whatever color, gender, or ideology, in a sales position before hiring a smelly, acne faced (just a example) person with a degree. The tables would probably turn if it were a IT position.

It's about the best fit for the job at hand.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


I would LIKE for the pendulum to just swing toward the middle and stop dead center, but that's not how it historically works. A women's rape group would not likely have their president be a male, no matter how sympathetic he was to their cause.

And that's the problem. Does a male need to be raped, to qualify for the position? Would he even be considered if he wasn't raped?

I agree though 100% that it needs to stop dead center, as a "human race" we need to stand together, and question "correctness" on all levels also.

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


I would LIKE for the pendulum to just swing toward the middle and stop dead center, but that's not how it historically works. A women's rape group would not likely have their president be a male, no matter how sympathetic he was to their cause.

And that's the problem. Does a male need to be raped, to qualify for the position? Would he even be considered if he wasn't raped?

I agree though 100% that it needs to stop dead center, as a "human race" we need to stand together, and question "correctness" on all levels also.

edit on 18-5-2013 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)

I would think it would help.

Would you want to be treated for addiction by someone who read about it in a book or would you rather have a former addict help you through it?

I believe there is a huge difference there. I've studied Presidents in extreme detail but do you think I would know more than a man who has actually been President?

Its a good question.

Would a white man bring the same knowledge that a person of a different ethnicity would?

Something to consider.

Originally posted by Hopechest


I think he would do just fine but many people don't want him and they do have a point they can justify.

Or use a point to justify it, regardless that the "point" should have no barring at all.

If this was me, I would make it a 'point" to say when is it going to stop, and why in this day and age are stigmas still being imposed?

reply to post by sonnny1


Because we haven't reached a point in society where we have removed all stigma's yet. If we were at that point we would have no need of diversity groups.

Until then, what somebody looks like does still have some impact and should be taken into consideration.