15 comments

[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 39.4 ms ] thread
That in of itself is discrimination, isn’t it?
(comment deleted)
(comment deleted)
(comment deleted)
Maximum exterior diversity, maximum ideological alignment. Diversity of opinions not welcome.
That seems to be the trend. 'If you're not a facist, you're a nazi' looks to be the hip discourse lately. I have never been more happy, or genuinely nervous to be unaffiliated with any political movement burdened by other members.

Still though, remember the left, the right, the facists, the nazis, the whigs, and even stalin all think they were doing the right thing, and saving humanity by making hard choices at the expense of others. Power, no matter how it is held, can and will bulldoze the powerless, no matter who they are.

Discrimination at its finest.

No doubt by a minority agenda to advance said minority agenda.

Now read http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html.

Requiring commitment to a particular political position is the best way to undermine the principles of free inquiry that our university system is based on. When thoughts become unthinkable, what happens if the unthinkable thoughts turn out to be true?

I don't care whether the opinions being shut down are ones that I agree or disagree with. They should not be examined honestly, not shut down. As the quote often misattributed to Voltaire says, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (Actual author Evelyn Beatrice Hall. Voltaire says the quote in a book of hers.)

>I don't care whether the opinions being shut down are ones that I agree or disagree with. They should not be examined honestly, not shut down.

That is either one very unfortunate typo, or the mother of all Freudian slips.

I'm pretty sure I know which one. I hate it when my thought/finger synchronization is off.

I rephrased and left a negative where I didn't mean to. Big oops.

Hopefully my intent is clear from the rest of the content.

What exactly is the argument? Berkeley attracts people from all over the world, and they also aim to educate students from non-traditional backgrounds. Of course you need minimal cultural competency just to do your job, and it's little surprise that the institution would like to see tangible proof.
Reading the article instead of just the title may prove enlightening:

"Berkeley rejected 76 percent of qualified applicants without even considering their teaching skills, their publication history, their potential for academic excellence or their ability to contribute to their field. As far as the university knew, these applicants could well have been the next Albert Einstein or Jonas Salk, or they might have been outstanding and innovative educators who would make a significant difference in students' lives."

Only so many (very few relatively speaking) people can go to a given elite school. If it really matters who gets in, everyone is doomed. If it doesn't matter, then they can use any criteria they please.

I happened to be looking at capsule bios of Kodak's C-level execs - I'm not sure how this compares to before their 2013 bankruptcy, but many of them seemed to have illustrious careers, and more than one went to SUNY Geneseo. Who knows, maybe one of them was motivated by being rejected by Harvard or something.

(comment deleted)
Reason: "Free Minds and Free Markets"

Berkeley: "Ok, we've freed our minds and want to focus on diversity. No Gods or Kings, Only Man amirite?"

Reason: "No, not like that."