No one's fired, no one's disciplined in the example they gave. Seems a hell of a lot better than private sector corporations.
> Georgia Tech has 41 DEI personnel but only 13 history professors.
??? So tell me how many total professors there are, and what the specific job duties of these DEI people are? I don't expect many history professors at a school with "Tech" in its name.
> DEI officials have a vested interest in ensuring that the grievances of identity politics continue lest the offices have no reason to exist.
There is a tendency to monoculture that frequently exceeds the tendency to diversity. This alone is enough to require a diversity initiative to counteract.
For students alone, differences in backgrounds result in differences of opportunities, and ability to pursue opportunities, while in the university. Students can benefit from targeted equity initiatives, and if they are good initiatives this will show up in graduation statistics.
For similar reasons inclusion means different kinds of outreach and opportunities, if every student is going to have a shot at a good college experience and graduation.
(These statements apply equally to the highly intelligent [e.g. Miraca Gross' Exceptionally Gifted Children which includes anecdotes of people with IQs above 160 who dropped out of college, or even high school], and the averagely intelligent students.)
Beats me. It's far from self evident to me too, but this is the case for a ton of jobs both in the private and public sectors.
I'm just saying that their are very real issues about diversity, equity, and inclusion that need to be addressed. Regardless of whether, or how much, current DEI offices are doing so.
I have no anecdotal experience. But it's worth asking a broader number of people. Especially among the peoples who are historically more marginalized or less likely to graduate.
My real issue with this article is it treats DEI workforces as monolithic. I want to know what the specific jobs actually are about and do. I want to know if any pre-existing jobs were reclassed into DEI that have duties such as counseling, pep, and whatever. We're talking about 41 people after all, at Georgia Tech alone. What are their actual duties? What are they actually doing?
Opinion pieces like this which highlight one episode are like if all we knew about the US military apparatus was Kent State.
One thing that scares the hell out of me is the power structure. In Boulder Colorado, at the university of Colorado there was a horrific incident where a female student allegedly shared childhood sexual abuse material of a male student with another student via airdrop.
That other student reported it - to the universities DEI organization. They of course got the police involved - but it tells you where students think power and authority lies.
> but it tells you where students think power and authority lies.
Perhaps, or perhaps the other student just didn't know who to contact, so contacted whoever they recalled from the various trainings being a confidential source or mandatory reporter or whatever. Of perhaps the student knew someone in DEI and felt more comfortable reporting it to that person.
Universities have for centuries now had separate reporting structures than to local police. I think this is the bigger problem. If something illegal happens students should be reporting it to the police (and not campus police).
12 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 19.7 ms ] thread> Georgia Tech has 41 DEI personnel but only 13 history professors.
??? So tell me how many total professors there are, and what the specific job duties of these DEI people are? I don't expect many history professors at a school with "Tech" in its name.
> DEI officials have a vested interest in ensuring that the grievances of identity politics continue lest the offices have no reason to exist.
There is a tendency to monoculture that frequently exceeds the tendency to diversity. This alone is enough to require a diversity initiative to counteract.
For students alone, differences in backgrounds result in differences of opportunities, and ability to pursue opportunities, while in the university. Students can benefit from targeted equity initiatives, and if they are good initiatives this will show up in graduation statistics.
For similar reasons inclusion means different kinds of outreach and opportunities, if every student is going to have a shot at a good college experience and graduation.
(These statements apply equally to the highly intelligent [e.g. Miraca Gross' Exceptionally Gifted Children which includes anecdotes of people with IQs above 160 who dropped out of college, or even high school], and the averagely intelligent students.)
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It seems far from self evident to me, and my anecdotal experience is that it achieves the exact opposite on all fronts.
I'm just saying that their are very real issues about diversity, equity, and inclusion that need to be addressed. Regardless of whether, or how much, current DEI offices are doing so.
I have no anecdotal experience. But it's worth asking a broader number of people. Especially among the peoples who are historically more marginalized or less likely to graduate.
Opinion pieces like this which highlight one episode are like if all we knew about the US military apparatus was Kent State.
That other student reported it - to the universities DEI organization. They of course got the police involved - but it tells you where students think power and authority lies.
Perhaps, or perhaps the other student just didn't know who to contact, so contacted whoever they recalled from the various trainings being a confidential source or mandatory reporter or whatever. Of perhaps the student knew someone in DEI and felt more comfortable reporting it to that person.
Universities have for centuries now had separate reporting structures than to local police. I think this is the bigger problem. If something illegal happens students should be reporting it to the police (and not campus police).