Student Rejected for Diversity Post Because He is "White"

Originally posted by Hopechest
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.

Really? Why not?

What if the people who are 'pssed off' are simply infantile, entitled, racist idiots? Do you think infantile, entitled, racist idiots stopped Martin Luther King, Jr. from pursuing justice?

In 30 years or less (depending upon amnesty legislation) whites will no longer remain the majority race in the US.
Does that mean whites will be having diversity meetings and disallowing everyone else?
www.huffingtonpost.com...

It would be my preference that we all just call ourselves Americans and not be broken down in to ethnic blocs.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


That's my preference, too. But as long as one group or another discriminates, we'll have laws and rules that disallow discrimination to try to level the playing field.

If we were all honorable, and acted without prejudice toward our fellow man because of his skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, religion, etc, then these "diversity groups" wouldn't exist.

As regards your question, see this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Speaking as a heterosexual white male who graduated from university last year, it seems pretty obvious why a university would be hesitant about appointing a heterosexual white male to be in charge of "diversity and inclusion." White heterosexual males have been in charge of that for quite some time now, and we have historically been the ones obstructing diversity and inclusion...

I think we all know that leadership positions in the public sector exist almost exclusively bureaucratic ends; smile for the cameras, sign this, take credit for that, be replaced when your usefulness has run out.

I have no doubt that a heterosexual white male could do the job. Almost anyone could probably do the job. The job is simply to be a mascot, so the question is this: "does this guy SYMBOLIZE diversity and inclusion?" The answer to that is obviously no. He would be an absurd mascot for diversity and inclusion, so it doesn't make sense to give him the position.

Originally posted by wagnificent
Speaking as a heterosexual white male who graduated from university last year, it seems pretty obvious why a university would be hesitant about appointing a heterosexual white male to be in charge of "diversity and inclusion." White heterosexual males have been in charge of that for quite some time now, and we have historically been the ones obstructing diversity and inclusion...

I think we all know that leadership positions in the public sector exist almost exclusively bureaucratic ends; smile for the cameras, sign this, take credit for that, be replaced when your usefulness has run out.

I have no doubt that a heterosexual white male could do the job. Almost anyone could probably do the job. The job is simply to be a mascot, so the question is this: "does this guy SYMBOLIZE diversity and inclusion?" The answer to that is obviously no. He would be an absurd mascot for diversity and inclusion, so it doesn't make sense to give him the position.

Would you ever want to be refused a position because of your skin color?

If you applied to a job and they said they wouldn't hire you because you are white then that would just be going back to the days of discrimination which everyone claims they want to escape from . . . .

Your logic is sdrawkcab ssa .. . . .

EDIT
Of course I went to public schools through grade 7 in which I was one of 5 white kids and found that the parents of other "minority" kids were telling them that I was a racist because I was white. Maybe it is a bit of a soft spot but my experience has always been one of being discriminated against by "minorities."

They literally had to put me in a separate class with the 12 Asian kids and other white kids for safety reasons. So hearing all this white people are racist crap annoys the hell out me as it is obvious most of those commenting have little to NO experience with it.

Its people like you who keep pushing this white people oppressed everyone agenda that are perpetuating the cycle.


A 5th grader shouldn't have to carry a knife with them for safety.

these diversity groups are the opposite of diversity- they are race/groupthink based

EACH INDIVIDUAL IS UNIQUE AND THEREFORE, REGARDLESS OF WHO GETS THE JOB, IT IS PART OF DIVERSITY!

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.

Depends OB what you mean by "reform." If you mean streamlining, transparency, and fair market practices, then the CEO would be a great choice. If by reform you mean revenge againtd the evil corporations for being all corporationy then no.

Diversity programs in universities have nothing to do with diversity and everything to do with bolstering up one group and tearing down another.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

That's my preference, too. But as long as one group or another discriminates, we'll have laws and rules that disallow discrimination to try to level the playing field.

If we were all honorable, and acted without prejudice toward our fellow man because of his skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, religion, etc, then these "diversity groups" wouldn't exist.

As regards your question, see this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 5/19/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

However, the group that had been discriminated agsinst has changed in the last several decades--especially in academia where one type of racism is still allowed if not encouraged.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

The oppressed do not want to be lead by the face of their oppressor, realize this.

Then the oppressed will continue to be oppressed. They have a agenda, and others have theirs and as long as a divide remains, the many sides will continue to bicker and nothing much will actually get done. The song remains the same

I do realize that everyone can't sing kumbiya and hug and get along. The toerance movement has become intolerant as far as I am concerned and use it as a weapon to bring people in line. THAT is what I am trying to point out here.

Maybe because it is the way I was raised, but if I am the leader of any group, it is to see the mission (or statement) to it's conclusion. I could give a rats butt about race, gender or ideology.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
The oppressed do not want to be lead by the face of their oppressor, realize this.

It has been pointed out to you already that just because somebody living today shares the same gender/skin colour as somebody else that did bad things in the past does not give you the right to discriminate against those living today. People should be judged as individuals on the basis of their actions and content of their character.

This particular group (White Hetero Cismale) has many privileges in our society and if this is one area where their needs aren't particularly catered to, I don't have a problem with that.

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 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.

edit on 5/18/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

A recent thread found that the US is one of the least racist countries on Earth.
If the PTB keep telling Americans that they are racist, people tend to believe it.

Originally posted by Hopechest
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.

Your logic is no different than simply ignoring and allowing some southern areas to remain incredibly racist, simply because it keeps the natives happy (natives being local racists in this case)

Integration upset a LOT of people, should we have continued to have schools for blacks and different schools for whites? Simply because it would have made some people happy? Probably would have made a lot of black people happy too, not all of them supported integration.

Do you see my point? Either stand for an idea, or SIT DOWN. A bunch of whiny "diversity" people who hate white people so much they cant stand to see one in their organization, well that reeks of someone who is selfish, petty, and has little to no desire to ACTUALLY promote diversity and equality.

Maybe the people who were upset about this, shouldn't be a member of this diversity group? It goes against their core ideals to be upset with someone simply for being white (or any race) Maybe this group should clean house a bit, and make sure their members are actually devoted to the cause of the group, not simply closeted minority racists who get away with it because they are a minority.

This is some shameful behavior, but not really surprising at all. Those who preach tolerance are often very intolerant, but are simply fashionable because they act intolerant against the right people (white people)

reply to post by TDawgRex


Just shows they aren't about diversity at all, but about being anti-white, and anti-straight.

Originally posted by Hopechest
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.

if his being white and straight upsets them, then they need to stop lying about the real intent of their group.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


I suppose a neo-liberal's wet dream is a black gay woman!

But seriously, let's not extrapolate what this group is doing to everyone non-white. Clearly some of these diversity groups are a little...off. Personally - at least in Britain - I believe we are past the times where such groups are needed. I don't know much about the US and if race is still a massive thing there - but in Britain, I seriously think that we don't really need such diversity groups anymore. I mean, we don't even "celebrate" the so-called "Black History Month" as much as you do in the US - just a bit too silly to be honest.

Reverse racism, the pendulum has swung too far in some organizations as they hire based on race to fill there diversity quota, which is now part of the corporate or government policy. Fully qualified for a job and white, too bad, we need to fill a spot with this minority group so we look good. Anybody who condemns racism should not like this, as racism in any form is bad for civilization. Some may think good, the white male has had it too easy for centuries.
And whereas that is true, what went on in the past, does not justify what is going on in 2013.
And this even effects white women as they are no longer seen as minority type of group in the work place.

Not that anybody is entitled to anything, but citizens of a county of any nationality should get first crack at all jobs in there own country. I know foreign workers come to the west to better their lives, but if unemployment is an issue, and it is, should not the citizens that have been paying taxes in that country, not get a benefit from that ?

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.

As someone said in this thread, it looks like it's being "engineered" onto the society and as such it's already a failure in itself. I do think that setting up a class for some minority group which explains the legislation which guarantees equal rights is a good idea. But that's it. That's where it needs to stop. We have laws and that's great.All this "diversity" talk inevitable leads to a suspicion that the decisions and appointments being made are not merit-based, done pro-forma and are otherwise suboptimal. It does cause resentment in people who are the supposed "majority" (in some areas that's pretty bogus but OK).

Everybody says they want to be "equals", they say they only want everyone to be able to be included and have the same chances and opportunities to achieve their goals and pursue their interests in a peaceful manner.

So, as a young child hearing about these things, I thought to myself, "Of course! I agree 1000% with that! And everytime I saw some extra help being given to minorities in my country, The United States of America, it made me smile, made me happier. And it still does make me happy to see any disadvantaged group of people receive a hand.

Although, I have to wonder sometimes if the white ethnicities are welcome in this new, equal world. I remain convinced, as always, that the most trouble in our society comes from a small percentage of people in any given group, and that the greater majority are generally good people. Just like, at the opposite end of the spectrum you will have a smallish percentage of extremelly moral people who give to society as much as the "bad" people take, and then there are different tiers of people until it equals out in the very center. Though I don't think any people could possibly be located in the very center...at least, not for very long before they would veer one way or the other whether through action or inaction. But I actually don't think its possible to be in the center... If you're good and slowly becoming bad, there will be a shift at some point where you go from 49:51 to 51:49... Could there be a third state of being? The 50:50, neither good nor evil? Perhaps ...if you believe a good or evil/bad designation behind an action comes from intention, then, if you remove all intention, then what? Or, rather than remove all intention, replace it with an intention that somehow doesn't interfere?

Diversity in it's pure definition is a issue to try and matched with, since most don't hold true and accept on ANY BASIS, not just how will this look,

there is other discriminations going on still, Financial, Social, Interests, even down to pet owners and non pet owners. Humans seem to love to recruit based on differences and similarities.

I think the best way to combat these idiotic means of viewing, is to ignore every form of them completely. The way to promote Gender Equality is not to form a ALL women's group and spread the word, it's to form a ALL GENDER GROUP and spread that word, same for every other aspect of Equal rights.

It's in the word EQUAL rights!
You cannot have EQUAL if you have no BALANCE...