Student Rejected for Diversity Post Because He is "White"

Student Rejected for Diversity Post Because He is "White"

radio.foxnews.com

“This university is not ready, in any capacity, for a heterosexual white male to be in charge in any way of diversity and inclusion,” said Ian Coley, a member of the diversity committee. “I don’t know if any university is.”

And Campus Reform reported that he had previously served as a member of the Northwestern Inclusion Task Force – created last year to help advocate for campus diversity.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.campusreform.org
dailynorthwestern.com
[url=http://dailynorthwestern.com/2013/05/14/opinion/editorial-asg-must-handle-itself-in-more-professional-respectful-manner/]dailynorthwestern.com[ /url]

This is not meant to be a race based thread but rather to point out that once again the intolerance of the supposedly tolerant. This is wrong on so many levels.

This is typical of the PC based mindset.

I'll have to step back now for a few minutes to get my temper, sarcasm and thoughts under control.

radio.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Funny how that decision was more than likely made by predominately white heterosexuals.

Well to be fair here, many outside multi-cultural groups were upset with his possible nomination.

For someone to be a leader of a diversity group I don't really find it productive if he would take the position while upsetting so many people.

Certainly the reasons that he is a white male should be irrelevant but you really don't want to put a guy in there, no matter what his ethnicity is, if its pissing off so many people.

Stephen Piotrkowski IS a member of the Inclusion Task Force...

Meet the Inclusion Task Force

Stephen Piotrkowski

Major: Journalism, Economics, Integrated Marketing Communications Certificate
Academic Status: Sophomore, Medill School of Journalism

Stephen feels extremely proud to be a member of the Northwestern community, and as a member, feels the need to be a contributor. The Inclusion Task Force will allow him to contribute in a way that will make everyone at Northwestern feel as proud to attend this university as he is. He feels there is an unbelievable amount of opportunity to improve and take part in the conversation about Inclusion and Diversity, and as a member of the task force, he cannot wait to bring the dialogue to all corners of campus and community life.

thats right white folk. you need not apply, we dont like or want you types here.


only good honest everyone else for our tolerant and diverse group.

white people, ha, what audacity...

Here is the problem I have with this. Lets say, that there was a much better candidate in terms of qualification only, for this role. If the selectors had a problem electing this student because there was a better candidate on that basis alone, I would be totally understanding of thier position.

However, if there is not a better candidate, with more expirience of dealing with similar responsibilities in an orgainsation, then there is something deeply amiss if an organisation which is founded on the idea of inclusiveness cannot accept the best person for a given job, just because he himself is not necessarily gay, african american, muslim, hindu or a christian scientologist, or a follower of some dark sect of murderous death worshipers. I am not from the middle east, but I still end up swinging punches to keep folk from there safe when they are under attack from other residents in my town (we do have the odd white supremacist piece of crap around here). It doesnt take being IN a minority to fight for the rights of one.

A diversity related project ought to recruit with that understanding well in place, especially when the quality of the candidate in question appears to be so high.

Well its kind of like putting someone in charge of corporate reform.

Who would be the best person for the job? Probably the CEO of some big oil company since he knows how the system works and what to do to fix it.

Would you really want to put that person in charge of reform though?

I believe this is why so many groups were against this man's possible nomination. I don't agree with them but I can understand their hesitation.

reply to post by Hopechest


As you just said THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I know that he is a member, but chances are not much longer. He was running for associate vice president of diversity and inclusion. But was denied based on not religion, views, ideology, but...well, you know.

I'm just pointing out that the supposedly tolerant people of our supposedly higher education are in fact...not that tolerant at all.

We see this kind of thing as race relations in this country "settle". It doesn't go from being "racist" to being "not racist". It's GOING to swing a little before it settles in the center...

It's like women's lib. You saw us go from being oppressed to nearly repressing our oppressors. Just now, is it settling down to true equality. Would a group of people in the 1960s, whose focus was to empower women, want a man to be their leader??? No.

Frankly, I'm not surprised at a diversity task force wanting minorities to be in their leadership positions. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

Originally posted by Hopechest
Well its kind of like putting someone in charge of corporate reform.

Who would be the best person for the job? Probably the CEO of some big oil company since he knows how the system works and what to do to fix it.

Would you really want to put that person in charge of reform though?

I believe this is why so many groups were against this man's possible nomination. I don't agree with them but I can understand their hesitation.

Yes, I would want someone who has been in the system and knows how to fix it (if they're honest anyways). Bringing in outsiders has often led to bigger failures just for the reason that they don't know what they are doing, but everything they say makes everyone feel good until the reality boom lowers.

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by Hopechest
Well its kind of like putting someone in charge of corporate reform.

Who would be the best person for the job? Probably the CEO of some big oil company since he knows how the system works and what to do to fix it.

Would you really want to put that person in charge of reform though?

I believe this is why so many groups were against this man's possible nomination. I don't agree with them but I can understand their hesitation.

Yes, I would want someone who has been in the system and knows how to fix it (if they're honest anyways). Bringing in outsiders has often led to bigger failures just for the reason that they don't know what they are doing, but everything they say makes everyone feel good until the reality boom lowers.

I agree with you, I was just pointing out why so many groups were against him and I can understand that.

It doesn't mean I necessarily agree with them since I feel they would have been best served by the best candidate. The fact that so many multi-cultural groups were upset though means he probably shouldn't have been considered.

Just to volatile a situation and would lead to all sorts of tension down the road. Is it fair to the young man? Nope but unfortunately, that's how politics work.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
We see this kind of thing as race relations in this country "settle". It doesn't go from being "racist" to being "not racist". It's GOING to swing a little before it settles in the center...

It's like women's lib. You saw us go from being repressed to nearly repressing our oppressors. Just now, is it settling down to true equality. Would a group of people in the 1960s, whose focus was to empower women, want a man to be their leader??? No.

Frankly, I'm not surprised at a diversity task force wanting minorities to be in their leadership positions. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

Understanding with it is one thing...agreeing with it is a totally different manner. I think that they should change their name to; Northwestern Inclusiviness Task Force (Motto: If you don't think like us, no need to apply!)

I also should add that these diversity groups, we have them on my campus, are really not that productive at anything.

You make a couple speeches to groups, write some proposals or hold an event or two, but it doesn't really take any qualifications other than being a people person.

So when you are discussing who is the best candidate, its kind of irrelevant. Pretty much any student could hold that position and do fine if they were interested in it.

Originally posted by Hopechest
Certainly the reasons that he is a white male should be irrelevant but you really don't want to put a guy in there, no matter what his ethnicity is, if its pissing off so many people.

The problem is that part of it. Too many people see "diversity" as something you engineer. It's organic. If diversity is artificial, it ends up being the same as homogeny in the long run.

This is why I can't see a quota system working. Nor affirmative action, nor voting for someone because he is black (or not doing so for that reason, what is the real difference?), or because she is a woman, etc.

Many would call me a "liberal" (and I thought I was when I was younger), but the term is so semantically loaded and amorphous anymore that I stopped thinking I was years ago, and stopped splitting things along that false dichotomy (liberal/progressive vs conservative).

I know too many "liberals" ( as society would call them) who are ignorant and intolerant and that feeds some messed up way to perceive what "tolerance" is actually supposed to mean. Likewise, I know too many "conservatives" who, certainly, have older, mythical, and ignorant world views, but who are not set in stone once you take the time to show them where their thinking is flawed. I think there is such a culture of moral righteousness and "right side of history" mentality among those people I know who are considered "liberal", that the same kinds of conversations (to show lapses in logic) becomes more difficult.

To put it another way, if somebody thinks they are informed on a subject matter (whatever it may be) its harder to correct it than it is to teach someone who is tabula rasa; no frame of reference whatsoever.

How is being a "white" male not part of diversity? If this kid were told he couldn't do something because of his ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation, how is that not discrimination?

Edit: not attacking hope chest, just using your point because I think it was emblematic of the views many would have, that's why I quoted you at the beginning. It's meant to be a general post, towards all.

reply to post by Sphota


Very good points but it still doesn't change the fact that people were upset with him possibly getting the job. This would have taken the focus away from the work the group is actually supposed to be doing.

I don't believe it is right but that's what would have happened. They shouldn't be using this man's appointment to teach their community a lesson.

That is not what the diversity group is about. Its about bringing people together, not causing tension.

They shouldn't be using this man's appointment to teach their community a lesson.

But they just did teach a lesson. This is out of control political correctness. They are afraid of someone having hurt feelings. Can't have that now, can we?

That is not what the diversity group is about. Its about bringing people together, not causing tension.

They failed big time on that one.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Sphota

 

That is not what the diversity group is about. Its about bringing people together, not causing tension.

But, ...and I agree, I was part of one in college as an RA....I think that that shouldn't be the goal of a diversity group (tension vs. bringing people together).

We can't always get along, culture dictates this. I was an Anthropology major in college and it has served me jack squat professionally, but from a critical thinking standpoint, it's been awesome...anthropology teaches the difficult discipline of looking at a culture as is and not passing judgment, just observing and seeing why this or that might happen. Culture can be anything from hipsters in an urban community to an isolated tribe in Papua New Guinea and any overlapping social grouping of humans in between, based on geography, language, religion, etc.

It's difficult because we are all colored by the culture(s) and subgroups we belong to. When a Haitian whistles at me to get by me, my first reaction was to get pissed: how rude! But that's how you pass someone in their culture. When I would whistle around older Haitians I was told I was being rude...can't do that to your elders. These things don't mesh. Hispanic people clicking (as you would to a horse) to say no doesn't fly in the US, even though its normal for them. Black Americans speaking a legitimate, rule-governed dialect with its own grammatical standards (whether people who don't speak it choose to know that or not), which they learn in the home before attending Standard American English public schools is just considered "Jive" or bad English by other Americans.

Tolerance, diversity, etc should teach these things. Just throwing people together based on superficial ethno-cultural Gestalts might get a handful of really open people to break down barriers, but many times, for lack of explanation behind/about these "other" people, it can lead to reinforcement of ignorant stereotypes, especially among "white" people. I should know, when I'm by myself among other white people.......wooooweeee the ignorant racism that flies out of these people's mouths. They think I'm one of them, which, I guess depends on your definition of "them", but I get offended and (picking my battles) speak up when I know I can easily show them how wrong they are.

As it stands, apparently those certain "white" people think I'm one of "them" as much as that university thought this young kid was also "one of them". I just don't see a difference at the main point of the issue.

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.