Scott N. Brooks, draped in a dapper shawl-collar sweater, looked out on the auditorium of mostly white students in puffy coats and sweats as they silently squirmed at his question.Did they literally squirm? If they did squirm, how would you know it was at a particular question, rather than at the banal restraint of another required session?
Why, he had asked, does Maria Sharapova, a white Russian tennis player, earn nearly twice as much in endorsements as Serena Williams, an African-American with a much better win-loss record?It depends on what the meaning of "it" is. We're comparing money made not in the playing of tennis but in the endorsing of products. What does it mean to be better at endorsing a product? But the students have no motivation to needle Dr. Brooks. They can see what they are expected to do, the coercion and pressure. They know they're supposed to say: It must be racist.
“We like to think it’s all about merit,” said Dr. Brooks, a sociology professor at the University of Missouri, speaking in the casual cadence of his days as a nightclub D.J. “It’s sport. Simply, the best should earn the most money.”
Maybe tennis is not as popular here as overseas, one student offered. Dr. Brooks countered: Ms. Williams is a global figure. As the room fell silent, the elephant settled in. Most sat still, eyes transfixed on the stage. None of the participants — roughly 70 students new to the University of Missouri — dared to offer the reason for the disparity that seemed most obvious. Race.Why is it daring to say what it's obvious the teacher wants you to say? The class was imposed on the students. They're required to sit through it. What might be daring would be to push the teacher back with the kind of statements that have been upvoted in the NYT comments section: "Sharapova looks like a Victorias secret model while Williams looks more like a NCAA football linebacker and that has NOTHING whatsoever to do with race, so don't make it about race" or "However, Serena IS muscular and she is not built with the long-legged model body of Maria. It's a fact that most women would prefer to be tall and thin. It's not a racist fact, it's simply a fact." It would be daring to say that from the classroom (as opposed to the comments section), because you'd risk becoming the lesson, as the teacher uses his superior power and experience to demonstrate why what you just said really is racist, including the part where you engaged in denial that it was racist.
The article continues:
The new frontier in the university’s eternal struggle with race starts here, with blunt conversations that seek to bridge a stark campus divide.But it's not a conversation. It's a leader with a lesson in front of a group that did not choose to engage over this topic. The text of the article — unlike the photo caption — has still not revealed that these students are submitting to a required session. Finally:
Yet what was evident in this pregnant moment during a new diversity session that the university is requiring of all new students was this: People just don’t want to discuss it.Human nature exists. Ironically, in an effort to elucidate the human nature that has to do with race, the university and the NYT act as if they are utterly naive about that human nature involved in the teacher-student power relationship and the resistance to coerced speech.
There's much more in this very long article, and I'm not going to discuss the rest of it, except to say that I was pointed toward it because of colleague of mine is quoted in paragraph 17:
Inclusion starts with ensuring that minority students are “not on campus in token amounts,” said Linda S. Greene, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who has served in various administrative roles that included diversity work. While some universities, particularly wealthy elites and flagships, conduct outreach to minority high school students, Ms. Greene challenges them to be as committed to building diverse and thriving student bodies as they are to recruiting top-flight athletes. She advocates identifying, developing and nurturing minorities as early as kindergarten, and investing in research on initiatives that drive success. “The big picture for me is this: You can determine an institution’s priorities by its dollar commitments,” she said. “We know what it takes for stem cell advancements and transplantation breakthroughs. When diversity becomes important enough, those commitments will be made.”I agree with the suggestion that the most valuable efforts come in early childhood.
Posts
142 comments:
Try also "because Serena Williams comes across as an in-your-face sort of person who would make a poor spokesperson for products of interest to women."
Naomi Campbell salary: $49M, Maria Sharapova salary: $26.8, Serena Williams: salary $24.6M.
Peyton Manning makes a lot more money in endorsements than Tom Brady, even though Brady is the better quarterback.
Is that fair?
Also of interest to me is that the Times refers to the male professor as "Dr. Brooks" but to the female professor as "Ms. Greene." Even if Linda Greene lacks her J.D. (unlikely!) she nevertheless has earned the title "Professor Greene."
First, excellent takedown of that unjournalistic article. Second, the racialists never fail to amaze me with their level of unbearably close-minded groupthink. Of course it's race! We cannot consider it being anything other than race, otherwise we're all part of secret endemic racism!
And shame on them conducting the "conversation" this way. A conversation would feature opposing viewpoints being given equal weight, both delivered by well-prepared people who know what they're talking about rather than teachers "explaining" it to students who frankly don't want to rock the boat because who wants to be viewed as racist? Especially by professors you may have teaching you one day and could give you a lousy grade (hey, maybe they'll be blind grading or equal minded, but who wants to take that chance?). This is no "conversation."
Yes, the Williams' are excellent tennis players, but there's just not a lot of money in women's tennis just for the sport itself. Endorsements have a lot more to do with personality, looks, and image that the sponsor wants to project. The Williamses unfortunately are not conventionally pretty, and many black women are (and many white women are not). To simplify with "race!" is to state a conclusion and ignore anything that might contradict it. And these are teachers, for crying out loud?
"Peyton Manning makes a lot more money in endorsements than Tom Brady, even though Brady is the better quarterback."
Using racialist logic, this has to be because Manning is white and Tom Brady is black, because I cannot consider any other possibility. Race matters. And if you think I'm wrong, it must be because you are willfully blind to the structural racism that has inhabited your worldview (that is, not recognizing Tom Brady's blackness).
Oh, no. This means the NBA will have to do lots of affirmative hires of shorter white guys who cannot dribble. Racism must be defeated.
And, finally, Professor Althouse, next time you meet "Ms. Greene" (as the Times characterizes her) in the faculty lounge you might ask her to reconcile challenging universities "to be as committed to building diverse and thriving student bodies as they are to recruiting top-flight athletes" when, as you yourself pointed out, the goal of affirmative action recruitment is to benefit white students by exposing them to students of color and to heck with whether the students of color benefit.
So, if more and more young people opt out of the grifter's game that higher education has become, how much longer until someone decides that we need to make these reeducation camps mandatory?
"People just don’t want to discuss it."
Well, no. People don't want to be beaten over the head with it. The students know better than to think this is any kind of "discussion." It's a browbeating session, with right answers and correct opinions. Trying to turn this into a "discussion" would only prolong the beating. Everybody knows it. A completely dishonest response to a load of ginned-up phony bullshit.
Tiger Woods.
LeBron James. Kobe Bryant. Tiger Woods. Li Na!
It's hard to Google, because the recent racism accusations flood the results, but I always that Serena Williams was notable for not selling out, for controlling her own image, and not playing along with the fashion game. That's part of what is awesome about her (and Venus Williams as well). If Serena Williams has been historically selective about her endorsements, that would change the aggregate.
A deeper analysis might look at specific brands. How much does Nike pay Williams vs. Sharapova?
Aaargh--good intentions and all that. The Great Society and other well intentioned programs having broken the nuclear black family in the USA creates a need for yet other programs to assist young single black mothers in raising children who can compete in college.
My oldest grandchild will turn 3 in June. She lives in England with her married parents--both of them working. Her English grandparents live a mile away. I suppose one could call her a child of "white privilege". There's a succession of au pairs, there's day care, visits a couple of times a year to the Southern California grandparents etc.
Statistics show that by the time a child of such "white privilege" turns five, he or she will have had two million more words spoken to her than a five year old child raised by an average struggling single black mother.
So now the suggestion is that we create a state or federal program to add those two million words to the life of a young black child by the time he or she is five.
It might have been better if black families hadn't been destroyed in the first place.
Here's "15 Athletes Who Made More Money off Endorsements than Playing."
Maria Sharapova is on the list at #12. And Anna Kournikova is #2. Pretty white ladies. But there's also Usain Bolt, #1, Tiger Woods, #3, George Foreman, #4, Michael Jordan, #6 — all black men.
...I always *thought* that...
I'm embarrassed to say I pay taxes that support such an intellectually and morally bankrupt institution as the University of Missouri.
Or, as Steve Sailer has said, you could just take black kids away from their parents as soon as they are born and give them to nice white ladies for cultural enrichment purposes.
Of course, the Australians tried this with the aborigines, and it's now supposed to be a national shame.
But, it's bound to work out here!
Serena Williams dominates exactly because she doesn't look like a model. It would be very unfair if she got most endorsements too.
So:
Serena Williams <- one item of world domination
Sharapova <- one item of most lucrative endorsements
Williams - Sharapova 1:1
How is that unfair???
@Brando. Tom Brady must be black Irish.
Brady and Manning are a perfect example. Brady does few endorsements, he has an intense, closed personality, he's has a bunch of weird dietary and fitness obsessions. Manning does tons of endorsements, he's a gregarious open personality, he has a gift for self-deprecating humor. Who are you going to buy insurance from: the weird loner, or the goofy friendly guy?
""And, finally, Professor Althouse, next time you meet "Ms. Greene" (as the Times characterizes her) in the faculty lounge you might ask her to reconcile challenging universities "to be as committed to building diverse and thriving student bodies as they are to recruiting top-flight athletes" when..."
The idea that I confront my colleagues with legal issues when I happen to run into them in the faculty lounge... weird!
"... as you yourself pointed out, the goal of affirmative action recruitment is to benefit white students by exposing them to students of color and to heck with whether the students of color benefit.""
That's not my opinion of the goal of affirmative action. That's the Supreme Court's idea of what the government interest must be for it to be constitutional.
I'll address the elephant in the room--ATTRACTIVENESS. Despite her fashion model pretensions, Williams is a heavily muscled (helps her immensely in tennis)woman with average (at best) looks. Sharapova is a slim very pretty woman with lesser tennis skills, but still a top contender. If you're advertising a product, you'll take the better looking spokesperson almost every time.
The "racial divide," obviously, goes in precisely the opposite direction the U of Missouri pretends, and has for a long time.
It's been 60 years of quotas and set-asides for blacks, women and gays. In fact, the purportedly "oppressed" are the fat, thuggish oppressors.
The Diversity racket is nothing more than another way to justify milking the guaranteed student loan programs for more loot and to set up more Democratic Party apparatchiks in plush PC enforcement featherbedding jobs.
The poor benighted Zeks (white straight men) in the system must suffer the ultimate disgrace, paying for their own imprisonment in the GULAG.
Heh - there are dozens of readers' picks, but only one NYT pick: "Racism is real..." Virtually the only comment that agreed with the article.
Wait, Ann: the diversity teachers raised that issue themselves
"Maria is considered a beauty queen, but by what standards of beauty? Some people might just say, ‘Oh, well, she’s just prettier.’ Well, according to whom? This spells out how we see beauty in terms of race, this idea of femininity. Serena is often spoofed for her big butt. She’s seen as too muscular.”
Gisele Bundchen: $44M, Tom Brady: $15M, Peyton Manning: $17M.
"Why, he had asked, does Maria Sharapova, a white Russian tennis player, earn nearly twice as much in endorsements as Serena Williams, an African-American with a much better win-loss record?"
This is the core problem. People who are supposedly educators think there should be some sort of parity when it comes to endorsement deals compared to when it comes to win loss records.
Look at the Supremes as a counter example. There was another singer Mary Wilson I believe, who may have been as good or better than Diana Ross. But Berry Gordy loved Diana Ross, or loved her look/voice more and Diana Ross ended up singing more of the songs.
So, merit doesn't have everything to do with it. IN the case of advertising its even more blatant. Why does some person do better than others? it has little to do with race. If the Russian tennis player earns more its probably because she's hotter. Or easier to work with.
If you are quick to say "You're not hiring me because I'm black" it has the odd effect of getting people to not hire you because you're an a hole.
Aunt Viv from Fresh Prince told off Jada Pinkett by reminding Will Smith that when they were on Fresh Prince of Bell Air they had come to him to talk about going to to the producers to talk about raises for everyone on the show and Will smith said "You have your deal, and I have my deal".
Why did Will Smith earn more than some other star on a sitcom at the time .Why did he go on to make movies while they languished in sitcom hell? Why did he earn more than Carleton? Because whatever value he brought to the table was worth more than those others. So stop worrying about what the Russian tennis player works and worry about your own deal,
These educators are trying to get opportunity of outcome. Thats not how it works.
Women want femininity when buying their trinkets.
Take this up with women.
I am Laslo.
Serena now pitching for IBM. So is Dylan.
Mega bucks.
@Althouse, I used to engage with colleagues (not "confront" them) all the time back before I retired. That's how one learns and improves. I was doing that right up to retirement.
As to your response to my comment, either the goal of affirmative action is to place students of color on campus to improve the educational experiences of the white students, per the Supreme Court, or the goal is to improve the educational experiences of the students of color, in which case they are, per statistical analyses, better off without affirmative action. No third alternative.
The notion that universities are not seeking out talented minorities is just plain wrong. A huge amount of effort goes into it at both elite institutions and state universities. What are these people talking about!
I agree with the suggestion that the most valuable efforts [to improve minoty preparation & achievement] come in early childhood.
If the left was serious about improving outcomes and opportunities for blacks they would make efforts to improve the education system rather than implement race preferences. Race preferences advance blacks to the same superficial credential level without the underlying education and training. It's effectively a brokered compromise between black parents and the education system where the education system refuses to accept the accountability / pain required to improve but offers black parents collegiate advancement and a career in government as a substitute. Hence the massive press for diversity departments in academia and regulatory bodies: that's a lot of people to find jobs for.
Because we can see the left's revealed preferences we know their priority for improving minority education is below maintaining the education system and a political base and jobs program. So ultimately the left's desire for your child - but not their politically connected child - to accept a lesser education and/or career is not to improve outcomes for minorities but rather to protect their political coalition.
ganderson said...
The notion that universities are not seeking out talented minorities is just plain wrong. A huge amount of effort goes into it at both elite institutions and state universities. What are these people talking about!
Everyone is equal and can be engineers, doctors, architects, or even President, if we only get them the proper pre-schooling and $$$$$$$$$$$$.
Practically everyone who's been to a mandatory diversity workshop learns that the real lesson learned is to keep as low a profile as possible, but, if you are singled out just recite whatever pieties are expected (preferably while keeping your head low and accepting guilt for whatever may have been done to anyone at any time for any reason).
Because, really, you don't want to be the first one to stop clapping. It's not as if everyone (yes, even New York Times writers) doesn't understand the power dynamics, requirements, and potential consequences of this political Kabuki dance.
Although one does wonder if perhaps a campus just might be a little more inclusive if the diversity bullies would just STFU for once (and, perhaps, find honest employment).
Big Mike said...
No third alternative.
Third alternative: It is about increasing the power and wealth of those calling for more affirmative action.
*Mic Drop*
I agree with the suggestion that the most valuable efforts [to improve minoty preparation & achievement] come in early childhood.
You mean like the wildly successful Head Start program?
Finally, the national talking-to on race.
Class diversity is a thin cloak for racism, etc. Class diversity schemers squirm when they are asked about individual dignity.
If you want to have an intelligent child, the best thing you can do for him or her is to have sex with other intelligent people (preferably just one you are married to).
But you can't say that at a diversity "conversation."
The good news is that reality has a way of dispensing with indoctrination over the long run.
"Peyton Manning makes a lot more money in endorsements than Tom Brady, even though Brady is the better quarterback."
Tom is better looking than Peyton in a more clear-cut way than the claim that he is a better QB (I am a Patriots fan). But Brady probably doesn't see the point in doing endorsements since his wife, much prettier than either Tom or Peyton, makes a lot more money with endorsements than they do. And she presumably can't throw a football any better than I can.
This says so much more about the Sociology professor than it does about racism. Why do the SJW pick such easily skewered examples as their exemplars. A gang rape that turns out to be fake. An unarmed teenage victim that has roughed up a storekeeper only minutes earlier. Now an apples to oranges prize money equated to product endorsements. Do they really think these are good examples?
Does their passion blind them to reasoning? Is it just starting with the SJW answer and working backward the example? Or is it Fen's law? They don't really believe their examples prove anything. They just enjoy cowing and controlling others from a position of supposed or actual authority in this particular case where others can't respond. Is it O'Brien holding up four fingers and telling Winston Smith there are really five?
The muddle-headed article and the professor support the idea that ad revenue aligns wth people's desires more freely: If someone can't move a product because they're not appealing enough, they aren't hired or they get fired.
If people hold such bad ideas at a university, they get the podium and maybe a Times article (we'll see if the Times can support such a model).
And thanks to Althouse providing her time and labor, we get to see how bad the logic is and childish/controlling/authoritarian the people who tend to be attracted to such bad logic.
Don Felder got kicked out of the Eagles for bitching about how the money was split up. He was by far the best guitarist in the band. Glenn Frey said something like "bands are not democracies".
We had required annual consciousness-raising sessions that I was disinvited to.
This is my pet peeve: that students are expected to recite and internalize the newspeak mantra "Diversity is our Strength" rather that any comprehension of the fact that racial diversity is a liability to be grappled with. And besides which, in all these re-education sessions, if white students benefit so much from "White Privilege," what reason is there for them to be willing to give it up?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/janetheactuary/2015/12/what-if-diversity-is-our-liability.html
By 'model' I mean articles like this, and openly, over time. It might work for the Times, like the Guardian, if the audience is sufficeintly invested in the ideas.
And I suppose any institution which has authority built-in (tenure, a captive audience) will have people attracted to the power. Such is politics, especially evident these days...
Make a high-chair and people climb over each other to sit down.
When someone's complaint about racism is that an African-American only makes $24million compared to $26million for a white person, I'd say racism isn't that big of an issue anymore.
Rosa Parks could buy her own bus company for $24million a year.
Perhaps they should struggle to bridge this gap COMPETENTLY?
Aside from the waste of everyone's time, by headlining such a ridiculous example they have just effectively convinced any student who is actually paying attention that the presenters don't believe it exists. In every female sport, the more attractive females do the best in terms of endorsement money. That may be evidence of SEXISM, but the fact that you can see the same in women's golf where the black/white thing hasn't yet come into play is obvious evidence that Williams' lower endorsements are not a product of racism.
Let's face it - John Daly and Tiger Woods got disproportionately high endorsements because men want to slam the ball long. In Tiger's case, his overall brilliance and business acumen were such that he rolled it up. The fact that he was attractive helped too. Daly may have been physically unattractive, but his personality, generosity and ability to whale the ball made him a disproportionate amount of advertising dollars. Plus, men who didn't have the athlete's build Tiger did could envision themselves picking up the weekend warrior club John Daly was pushing and awing their friends.
But women's endorsements usually go by looks, and that is because most women respond to how the spokesperson looks. Not only is this sex bias, but it's sex bias on the part of females. The presenters could not have chosen a more self-defeating example. Virtually no women want to look like Williams, and so she is not that great for marketing many products.
Couldn't the presenters have done this more effectively and topically by asking students to consider whether they would be surprised by seeing a black female in an engineering class (they would)? Couldn't they have talked about unconscious biases using real-life examples, relevant to the students' lives, to raise the students' awareness and alert levels?
Most younger people are pretty nice, and they would respond to such an approach. Most young people want to believe that they care about others, about fairness, about hope and opportunity, and about living their lives so as to create a better common society. Asking them to believe nonsense is only going to build a racial divide rather than break it down.
If racists were trying to create racial divides, they would herd students into a room and force them to give lip service to such crap. Maybe it's time for these people to stand up, feel some shame, and try to really do the job I assume they are being paid to do. Maybe?
I weep for the poor millionaires and oppressed college professors.
CWJ - exactly! Following this course just tends to produce the subliminal belief in those being "taught" that this is bullshit. It's quite, quite counterproductive.
"Good morning, everyone, I am Mr. Jones, your Diversity Seminar Instructor. As you can see, I am a man of color: white people, if it would make you feel better, let out that long sigh you got all stifled in you. Better?
Being that I am not a shiftless lazy type of black man I am going to get us started quickly..
People of color: pick a white person in the class today and stare at them. That's it: just stare at them. Good, good.
Now, the white people are probably thinking to themselves "Why are all these black people staring at me? I didn't do nothing."
And that is my point, white people: people of color get stared at all the time. They didn't ask for it; they 'didn't do nothing.' Let's let this soak in. Feels good, black people, right?
Now, white people: while all the black people are staring at you I want you to take your wallets out of your pockets and purses and set them on a desk in front of the nearest black student. C'mon, you can do it, we are all classmates here...
Now white people: look at me. No - no -- no glances to see if your wallet is still there: look at me. Keep looking at me, keep looking...
Now close your eyes. Yes, you are going to close your eyes while your wallet is in front of a black student you don't know. Excruciating, right. Now, black people: touch the wallet in front of you.
White people, I see some eyes opening -- keep them closed.
Black people: feels kinda good, right? Maybe even like you might even DESERVE a little bit of what's in there?
Okay, white people, open your eyes. Yep, the black folk are still staring at you. Now, go up in front of them, look them in the eye and reclaim your wallet. That's all, just reclaim your wallet, no reason to be timid...
That wallet was SO close, wasn't it, black people? It was almost like it could've been yours, right?
Now, we're going to repeat this process, but I will be leaving the room for ten minutes while you do this. Good luck."
I am Laslo.
Serena Williams sister Venus is a superstar tennis player as well. They compete against each other for endorsements. It's like which Beattle do you like better, John or Paul. Venus is prettier and Serena is a better player.
Venus and Serena make more in endorsements than Sharapova, who is exceptionally pretty like Kournakova.
Also, Europeans are more racist than Americans. Tennis isn't that popular in the US relatively.
There are non race explanations for this.
Of course any student sitting in that re-education camp knows to keep his mouth shut.
Endorsement payments are about sales. Ok, so buyers are racist, then, obviously. Wait, what are the demographics of tennis gear buyers? Overwhelmingly white, you say? Hmm, interesting.
Was Larry Bird "better" than Michael Jordan? By some metrics, yes. Was Larry Bird capable of selling as much product as Jordan? No, not by a long shot. Michael Jordan's endorsement payments were (and still are!) much higher than Bird's. The buyers of basketball and basketball-related gear are less white than the nation as a whole. Jordan is less white than Bird. Is that racism (against Bird)?
Nevermind, we all know these classes aren't about reasoning, and logic and critical thinking are probably racist anyway. Hell, facts are racist, when you get right down to it. Squirm, white kids, squirm!
I have never understood how black students can complain about a lack of diversity and then say the remedy to the solution is to enroll more black students? How is a black student wanting more black students diversity? When black students say they want more black students, they are asking for the school to become less diverse vis-a-vis themselves. The entire argument is that the black students would be more comfortable around people who look like themselves and have similar backgrounds to them. Nothing wrong with that, but don't call it diversity.
A question for Mr. Brooks: How much time and effort do the agents of Sharapova and Williams respectively spend pursuing endorsement opportunities?
Martina Navratilova was the dominant tennis player of her era. i'd venture to say that she made even less money in endorsements than Serena Williams. The fact that Martina was openly gay had something to do with this........Serena should check her heterosexual privilege card. It's sad to note that these teachers did not take note of the fact that homely hetero superstars make more than homely lesbo superstars. This is sexism at its most subtle and most pernicious level. These so called diversity instructors are inculcating sexism into the minds of our children.......I dream of the day when eyesores like Martina Navratilova can make more money in lingerie endorsements than Chrissie Evert.
What might be daring would be to push the teacher back with the kind of statements that have been upvoted in the NYT comments section: "Sharapova looks like a Victorias secret model while Williams looks more like a NCAA football linebacker and that has NOTHING whatsoever to do with race, so don't make it about race" or "However, Serena IS muscular and she is not built with the long-legged model body of Maria. It's a fact that most women would prefer to be tall and thin. It's not a racist fact, it's simply a fact." Gonna have to report some people to the Dean.
Interesting that your colleague wants to measure level of commitment by financial investment. In higher ed, of course, a lot of money already goes into "diversity." Let's see Mizzou's financial aid data, broken down by race, controlling for scores and SES.
$$ are not the only relevant measure, though. As Peter Arcidiacono at Duke reports (using Richard Sander data): "The data show that the extent of preferential admissions for black students is even more pronounced at other elite public law schools, such as the University of Virginia and the University of Wisconsin. In both of these cases, the median black admit had an academic index that would place him below the fi rst percentile of the white admit at the same school." I wonder if that will be covered in the MIzzou diversity course.
Academics and activism do not go hand in hand. Activists, like lawyers advocating for a client, will only bring up some of the facts and not others.
Look, some things are just facts.
Non-Hispanic whites make up about 64% of the current US population.
Non-Hispanic blacks make up about 12.5%.
Hispanics make up about 16.5%.
Asians make up about 5%.
Across all group less than 5% of people identify as LGBT.
A room with 100 people that "looks like America" will be 2/3rds white, with 17 Hispanics and only 13 black people.
Are those facts racist? If we actually care about equal representation in things like the Media then the bigger problem is the large under-representation of Hispanics and the vast over-representation of LGBT characters. In most popular sports blacks are overrepresented as players. Tennis is an exception (probably, I don't really follow it) but other, more popular (in the US) sports like basketball & football don't have that "problem."
Anyway it's a stupid example, but it is a bit sad that students are forced to take a course that proudly uses such a stupid example--it does show how safe the instructor must feel from any kind of challenge from the students.
Wisconsin doesn't get the top athletes or the top black and Latino students. So your colleague's plea for more money is useless.
Wisconsin finished second to Duke in last year's men's Final Four and the Badgers best two players were white.
The faculty at UW should spend as much time developing black and Latino students abilities as the basketball program spends developing its white hoops players.
But unlike academics, the school expects good results in its sports programs. In other words, Bo Ryan was better has job than your colleague. She needs to step up her game
Serena is seriously on steroids. Not so sure about the Russian. It can also be said that white people, blond female white people, play way more tennis than black women and buy way more tennis racquets, tennis outfits etc. Serena's ass is enormous and not ad worthy.
Or it just may be that white people now, as in the past, hate black people and wish they did not inhabit the same planet or eat food. This is probably the real discussion that should be had there in that required "conversation" room and the students should maybe explain this fact to the "leader." They should agree that they are racist to their marrow even though they don't want to be. They should give in and congratulate the "leader" for pointing out the obvious, that every single solitary white person is both white and hateful and does not want to live on the same planet as black people, especially black female tennis players and that under no circumstance would they buy a tennis racquet brand even held in the hands of a black person. It is simple really to liven up these sessions and perhaps even make the leader "squirm."
"People just don’t want to discuss it."
Can't imagine why.
Jane the Actuary,
You make a very good point. Thank you for your comment and the link.
Two comments on my part. Unlike most nation-states, the USA can not draw upon a shared land and volk mythology for it's existence. It's national mythology is based upon a set of ideals rather than blood. Anyone who embraces that set of ideals, is welcomed as an American. As you point out, the national challenge has always been to Americanize each new wave of immigrants, and eventually gain the acceptance of each new wave by those already here. The melting pot (as opposed to the other current metaphors) is essential to the American nation's continued existence as a nation. When roughly fifty years ago we started deconstructing the hypocrisies and conrradictions inherent in the set of American ideals at the same time that we tried to fulfill them regarding race, I don't think anyone realized that we were tearing apart the mythology that held our nation together. The racial barriers were eliminated legally, but the impulse to mock and pick at the rest of tradition remained and continues to this day.
We got diversity by default, not by design. Diversity is our strength is the diluted lemonade we've made out of these lemons. Denial and spin rather than cultural confidence. The melting pot is hard. Telling everyone they're perfect just the way they are is easy, It's national, "I meant to do that."
Class diversity schemers view the world through a rainbow paradigm that endorses rarefaction and division by spectral clusters. It's not a coincidence that they adopt a pro-choice religion and miss the individual for the differentiated clump of cells.
We were moving away from the rainbow paradigm, and embracing a white paradigm that reflects all colors, until the class diversity schemers resurrected class distribution schemes, and the Left exploited them for political, economic, and social leverage.
"Ann Althouse said...
Here's "15 Athletes Who Made More Money off Endorsements than Playing."
Maria Sharapova is on the list at #12. And Anna Kournikova is #2. Pretty white ladies. But there's also Usain Bolt, #1, Tiger Woods, #3, George Foreman, #4, Michael Jordan, #6 — all black men."
I'm not sure about thhat list. They printed this about Phil Mickelson:
‘Lefty’ as he is commonly known, has made just shy of $4 million in career winnings but an incredible $48 million in endorsements with Enbrel, KPMG, Rolex and Callaway, which account for over 90% of his total earnings.
Mickelson's career earnings are over $80 million.
I want to take Laslo's class.
So I did a some research. I googled images of Maria Sharapova and Serena Williams. Apparently, this is something Dr. Brooks has never done.
Pardon me while I do a little more research
Well, no. People don't want to be beaten over the head with it. The students know better than to think this is any kind of "discussion." It's a browbeating session, with right answers and correct opinions. Trying to turn this into a "discussion" would only prolong the beating. Everybody knows it. A completely dishonest response to a load of ginned-up phony bullshit.
Very well said.
Some sports like tennis and soccer enhance the cuteness of cute girls. That might be part of their motivation to play these sports. Other sports like basketball and softball not so much. Non cute girls should go into these sports.......A non cute girl can succeed in gymnastics based on her athleticism, but superstar status is reserved for the cute girls.........Within one hundred years, thanks to gene splicing, all girls will be cute. They will have Nordic blonde hair and round African asses.
I will hazard a guess that most athletes would rather be endowed like Serena Williams than Maria Sharapova. Serena is built like tank and has the necessary skills to be the top female in her sport.
I will also hazard a guess that most women prefer to identify with Sharapova because she is cute and f@@@able. Serena is less so. Most women probably realize that men would prefer Maria to Serena in bed because Serena might break them in half. Sex sells.
In terms of my own preferences, I will take Serena and hope to survive. Baby got back, serious back.
Does Maria get paid the same as Serena for playing tennis? As in winning a tournament, or based on where they place? That there is a difference in earnings from marketing is easy to understand and its hard to have much tolerance for being challenged to examine why.
Using bad examples in "teaching" often leads to missing the point that might otherwise be worth making.
The values of those endorsement deals are staggering. How much does Laslo get annually from Astroglide?
So explain Tiger Woods and his huge boost to popularity in Golf -- especially Nike Golf -- before his sexualized implosion.
This obsession with diversity is racist to its core.
Greater resources should be devoted to some groups of people, identified race and only by race, from kindergarten (their first personal interaction with the State) through college?
Aristocrats aren't aristocrats because they enjoy privilege, they are aristocrats because they have the right to bestow (or withhold) privilege. These are the rights claimed by the people who make up the diversity indstry.
And Giselle Bündchen makes boatloads more than her husband, even though she can't throw a football nearly as far.
Though I am 30+ years out of college, I got a sick feeling in my gut when I read the summary of this article as I imagined being forced to sit through this class. Also, the author fails (accidentally? on purpose?) to remember the feeling a student (at least this student) got when he challenged a professor-- any professor-- on even a minor point. I recall it vividly. It's gutsy, it's exhilarating, it's not something that is undertaken lightly. And, depending on the professor, it's either dealt with fairly and gently... or it's a disaster best left forgotten. It may not be that way for everyone. But those memories flooded back. (And sometimes, the ugliness comes from fellow students who are either mean or ignorant or looking to please the prof. Ugh. I am so glad I'm not a college student in 2016.
So how do Mrs. Rodham Clinton and Mr. Sanders propose to eliminate the pay inequities among these elite athletes? Apples to apples and all . . .
Steven Den Beste blogged about female tennis players back in 2003".. Back then it was Anna Kournikova v. S. Williams. Same thing.
"The Williams sisters are large women to begin with, with heavy frames, and are very strong. Serena is 5'10" (178 cm) and weights 145 (66 kilograms); Venus is 6'1½" (187 cm) and weights 169 (77 kilos). They're superb tennis players and attractive women, but they aren't what most of us think of as "feminine" because we associate that kind of physical build with masculinity.
And they're both freaks. Both Venus and Serena are heavier and taller than the average American man, let alone the average American woman.
Kournikova is 5'8" (173 cm) and weighs 123 pounds (56 kg) which makes her taller than the average woman but places her well within the normal weight range for someone of her height. Her talent in the game got her to the level she was at, but any improvement beyond that would have required her to bulk up. That would have made her a more formidable tennis player. It also would have made her less "beautiful", and from what I've read, that was a sacrifice she wasn't willing to make. Her coaches wanted her to do it, and she refused."
It depends what "game" you are trying to win. Serena Williams is playing tennis, and Maria Sharapova is playing tennis endorsements.
It's really "render unto Cesar." Academics who rail against fame and privilege and power are telling us what they value the most. They worship these things, and they teach the students that money and power are what matter. Guess what those students are going to care about when they graduate? Guess what standard they measure themselves by?
I'm not terribly upset that athletes like Sharapova exist. I don't think Serena Williams cries herself to sleep at night because the world doesn't buy enough of her gear. I think she's happy being the best female tennis player ever, and that's how she's going to be known when she's gone. No one is going to be talking about Sharapova in twenty years.
The class diversity schemers marketed Obama on his "blackness". He was elected on his "black boyfriend" or generally "black friend" appeal. The chauvinist and minority fiefdoms and leaders were especially smitten. The democratic economics of capitalism is probably less a concern than the same model in politics.
That said, while indoctrination is hard, aesthetic selection through "planning" is easy. The class diversity schemers could address aesthetic, athletic, etc. disparities through pro-choice policies.
I for one fully support these types of diversity lectures / attempted indoctrination. As a parent of two college-aged students I can say from experience that nothing makes political correctness more repulsive and alienating than having this type of drivel shoved down your throats. Keep up the good work Missouri.
That class is an outpost of hell.
In every way as a mental version of a Hieronymus Bosch painting (you had a post on that !), where hell is a landscape of the irrational, grotesque and bizarre.
Even the teachers probably understand, deep down, that they are pushing the false and irrational, but are required to convince themselves if only superficially and temporarily. As the trope goes, it takes an intelligent person to believe the dumbest things, because only they are able to rationalize them. This can't be good for their mental health.
A purely Dilbertian world in one small space, for a short time.
Virgil Hilts said..."I for one fully support these types of diversity lectures / attempted indoctrination. As a parent of two college-aged students I can say from experience that nothing makes political correctness more repulsive and alienating than having this type of drivel shoved down your throats. Keep up the good work Missouri."
This.
AT my daughter's enormous state university here in Austin, Texas, all freshmen STEM majors were required to take a "humanities" course freshman year. It was leftist indoctrination 101, under the guise of something like "A History of Film in the US." 150 engineering freshman had to take a class about movies!
The STEM kids knew the class did not count toward their GPA. In a lecture hall of about 300, 150 STEM majors decided to challenge the libtard prof, from the first day loudly condemning her inaccuracies about US history, objecting to her blatant lies and political commentary. Within three weeks, the other 150 students had joined with the STEM majors. The prof stopped lecturing, instead handing out reading lists and showing movies and saying nothing at all to the class for the remaining weeks of the semester. All the students passed the course, of course, because the riot a failing grade would have caused would only highlight the professor's failure to correctly indoctrinate the little young ones.
Don't worry about the kids. They see through bullcrap with a clear vision of reality.
To intrude on Laslo's subject area (he HAS surprised me here) the difference between Williams and Sharapova is the purely animal reaction in the healthy human brain. This is what makes that argument, that forced conclusion, like one of Bosch's demons - an unnnatural monster, a frog-bird-lizard-pig hybrid of fantasy.
"Yes Scott, we are all sinful racists, now get me my Venti Latte please. No I don't need you to sign the cup. Thanks!"
It takes Mother Nature to endow individuals with a bias. It requires class diversity schemers to nurture and develop it into a prejudice so that they may realize its full potential.
A bias is natural. Class diversity scheming is anthropogenic with frequently catastrophic consequences.
The answer to these con artists is always race. The question doesn't even matter. Nothing else can even be considered. No one spoke up at the attempted brainwashing because they already know that simple disagreement will get you labeled a racist who doesn't even know how racist he is. Who wants to begin their college experience by showing courage and getting treated this way? I don't blame these kids. It's these one sided "conversations" that are actually just lectures by scammers who accuse society of racism using only evidence they can see or that so old it's irrelevant and stale and the kids are just supposed to sit there and take it. A mass walk out on this garbage is called for. Unfortunately, those movements require leaders and it for most it simply isn't worth it.
@ Virgil Hilts and Original Mike/
"I never felt like walking on the grass until someone put up a sign that said 'don't walk on the grass.' "
Lynch,
Don't confuse Kournikova with Sharapova.
Sharapova is a hell of a tennis player. She has won five majors to Venus Williams 7 majors (and has won 35 professional tournaments).
Serena Williams is an all time great player, along with Court, Evert, Navratilova, and Graf. Sharapova has the misfortune to play in the Serena era, but she's still a terrific player. Tennis fans will remember Venus and Sharapova in 20 years even though Serena is the best of this era.
PS: As someone has said before (here?) "Racism is the lefts Unified Field Theory of the social sciences, i.e., it can be used to explain EVERYTHING.."
Suggested reading on the situation -
Vaclav Havel - especially I think "The Garden Party".
That would be interesting to stage in college, though I suspect over the heads of most.
WHy is Sharapova an endorsement dream? Because she's hot. And has no problem showing off her bikini body.
if you google Venus Williams in a bikini you'll see why she isnt necessarily the first choice for hot model you'd put on a commercial. She looks like a tank.
THat being said she's been in Mcdonalds commercials, apple commercials, Milk commercials. its not like she is not getting endorsement deals. Sharapova may be getting more (if she even is, I'm not sure) simply because she has a more marketable phsyique.
"As the room fell silent, the elephant settled in. Most sat still, eyes transfixed on the stage. "
Never talk about race in settings like this. Very little good can come of it, but a whole shit-load of bad is possible.
I would have had a very hard time figuring out those basic facts from the text of the article
This is not surprising, since the whole exercise is a pack of lies.
Do the models on Project Runway display body diversity? Perhaps the fashion industry needs restructuring.
Why, he had asked, does Maria Sharapova, a white Russian tennis player, earn nearly twice as much in endorsements as Serena Williams, an African-American with a much better win-loss record?
Because endorsements aren't based on a playing record, but on how many fans somebody has, and maybe on how many people in the audience will identify with (or take guidance from) the endorser. Or the problem could be with the advertising agencies.
And wait a second....
How does he know the fee Maria Sharapova gets?
Maybe she charges less for an endorsement than Serena Williams, who may feel she should have ahigher market rate.
I bet you the statistic Scott N. Brooks has is the number of endorsements, not the atheletes income from endorsements.
Where did he ever get the idea that Stan Musial and Stan Williams would have gotten paid the same amount for an endorsement? Or for acting?
A. Somebody probably fed him this phony statistic.
The whole thing is largely a recitiation of false or misleading statistics.
There's an argument that it's bad for anyone to be the only person like him on a campus - but there are alwasys going to be small enough minority groups. Black, even urban American born black, is not the only minority.
Should people be admitted to colleges only in batches of 10 or 12?
Justin Henin and Kim Clisjters were much much better tennis players than Anna Kournikova but Kournikova made lot more money than Justin and Kim, you may ask why?. This had nothing to do with race because every one involved were white. The primary reason is that Anna Kournikova was considered much prettier than Justin and Kim and hence she was more marketable. The same applies for Serena and Maria. If Serena had the looks of Beyonce, then see if the arguments hold true.
How come a Mercedes and BMW cost more than a Hyundai that has more features and power than the comparable Mercedes. Its called brand, is it unfair to Hyundai, may be....but I don't think people will shout racism because one car is made in Germany which is white and other in Korea who are Asians. Not everything is about racism.
What an amazing example of oppression--a woman who makes $26 million a year.
I think that Serena is every bit as attractive as Maria, but in quite a different way. I'm talking basic sexual attractiveness to my maleness. However my maleness, and maleness in general, is not the target audience for most of the marketing done by Serena and Maria. The target is women, and probably mostly white women. So when you cut through it, the professors were arguing that white women are bigoted, or at least enough of them to make Serena's endorsements less valuable.
Tiger woods made more money in 2015 without winning any tournament than golfers who won more than one tournament.......Will the professor say this is due to racism as well.
A few moments with Mr. Jones, Diversity Seminar Instructor.
"White boy with the gray hoodie in the second row, what is your name?"
"Uhhh... Taylor."
"Feeling scared right about now, huh, Taylor? teacher singling you out in a Diversity Class?"
"Uhhh..."
"That's fine, it's OK to be scared. Race is a tricky thing. The wrong word, and your Life can be effectively ruined."
"Yeah."
"So, Taylor: I want you to look athe closest black student to you and call him 'Nigger'."
"What?"
"There's a black student, just a few seats over. Call him 'Nigger.'
"I can't do that, Mr. Jones."
"And why is that, Taylor?"
"Because -- because it's wrong."
Why is it wrong, Taylor? Because it is racist? Because the word demeans a person? Because it is hurtful?"
"Yeah. All that."
"Or are you more worried about getting your white ass kicked, calling a black man 'nigger' and all?"
"That's not it --"
"And class, THAT is racism. Not that Taylor has said the 'N-word' but because he lies to himself over why it is wrong. Taylor, why would you even use such a word, if it is so demeaning and hurtful?"
"Because you told me to!"
"And you'd knowingly hurt someone, just because someone told you to?"
"But you're a teacher! I'm supposed to do what you tell me!"
"I'm a Teacher, but I'm also a human being, and human beings are tricky bastards. People will fuck you over, just for kicks. And that is today's first lesson, students -- write this down:
'People will fuck you over, just for kicks.'
And note, this WILL be on the Test..."
I am Laslo.
David, do you think Serena is every bit attractive as Sharapova......you need to get tested. There is no racism in saying Serena is less prettier than Sharapova......I will also say that Serena is less prettier than Beyonce but Beyonce is much prettier than Sharapova.....racism has nothing to do with it.
So, this is why the Chinese implemented pro-choice/one-child policy. They must be absolutely apoplectic at the dearth of class diversity in their society. And the African nations, Arab nations, India, ... They're a class diversity schemer's nightmare.
Other thoughts:
1. Maybe it's because Serena is an American. Americans don't market to the world as well as Europeans?
2. Perhaps Serena spends less time on marketing and more on tennis. Could that be why she dominates Maria on the court?
3. Serena (and Venus) have been building a clothing brand. What is the value of that? How much energy is going into that as opposed to current marketing and modeling? Perhaps they are wisely investing for the future, building their business contacts and acumen for the long run? (Think Lacoste, still generating income based on the efforts of a French tennis player who was a star in the 1920's.)
4. Who is going to be better known and more "valuable" 20 years from now when looks fade and accomplishments matter more?
Looking at the world from a single perspective can really make you stupid.
VIjay Andrew said...
David, do you think Serena is every bit attractive as Sharapova......you need to get tested.
I didn't say Serena was prettier. She's not based on current mainstream American standards. I said Serena matched Maria in sexual attractiveness. Both these concepts are subjective, but if you can't see the sexual energy of Serena, you need a few blue pills, not a test.
"Looking at the world from a single perspective can really make you stupid."
Yes, someone is being stupid here.
And Vljay I never said racism has anything to do with it. I don't believe that it does.
As for beauty, these aren't just "current mainstream American standards".
This sort of divergence is the same, for certain, in Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, East Asia today, would have been the same in, say, the Ottoman empire in the 16th century, and I think back to the Neolithic.
Can't argue with the male biological response.
Granted, men are actually more forgiving of beauty flaws than women imagine (now that is an awkward argument in person!), but what and who actually catches the eye, yes there is a healthy norm.
David said...
Both these concepts are subjective, but if you can't see the sexual energy of Serena, you need a few blue pills, not a test.
Most men in the world will need lot of blue pills to see the sexual energy of Serena.
I do agree beauty is subjective......
If these classes were scripted by Laslo they would be the most popular first year courses on campus and people would audit them by standing in the back row.
A few moments with Mr. Jones, Diversity Seminar Instructor.
"Taylor?"
"Oh God, no. Can you please pick someone else this time?"
"But I like talking to you, Taylor. See those two young women in the front row?"
"Yes..."
"What is the difference between them?"
"I -- Idon't know, I mean, I haven't talked to either of them."
"So you would need to know their character to make any assumptions, besides the fact that one woman is white and the other woman is black?"
"Character: yeah."
"You think you just might be out of the woods now, don't you, Taylor..."
"God I hope so..."
"So you are saying there is no difference between them based just on skin color?"
"Yeah, I think I am."
"So if the black woman said there was INDEED a difference between her and the other woman, based just on skin color, she'd be the one who is lying?"
"No --"
"She'd be the one who didn't understand what it means to have black skin?"
"You're killing me, Mr. Jones."
"You know how you can get out of this situation, don't you, Taylor?"
"How?"
"If you happened to be Gay you'd be a minority victim, too."
"But I'm not gay."
"We know that Taylor. But if you just say it you will be able to get out of this mess. Come on, Taylor, just once: say that you're gay."
"Okay, Okay! I'm gay!"
"And so Taylor, you think being Gay all of a sudden means you can't be a racist?"
"Lesson One! Lesson One!"
"Yes, Taylor? What do you mean by that?"
"You're going Lesson One all over me!"
"And what was Lesson One?"
" Lesson One: People will fuck you over, just for kicks!"
"VERY good, Taylor! VERY good! You are learning..."
I am Laslo.
The issue we have currently....is everything is seen as racism and media is partly to blame for it......They sensationalize everything and topics on racism are very easy to do that.
"Don't worry about the kids. They see through bullcrap with a clear vision of reality."
Yes and this must drive the SJWs nuts. My daughter went through the usual brainwashing BS at U of Arizona and saw through it. I helped by going through her "American History Since 1877" final exam study guide and pointing out the lies. One was that "The Silent Majority" was made up of white people who refused to accept the 1964 Civil Rights Act. No mention of Vietnam or Nixon,
I looked up Linda Greene's CV. Does the woman ever find time to sleep? It appears she was an athlete in college and beyond, so she knows a thing or two about level playing fields.
""Don't worry about the kids. They see through bullcrap with a clear vision of reality."
Some do. Some do not.
There is an obvious question to the "diversity educators". Why are most major sports segregated by sex? Isn't this sexist?
I don't follow tennis, but binging Maria Sharapova brings up the following:
Maria Yuryevna Sharapova is a Russian professional tennis player, who is ranked world No. 6 by the Women's Tennis Association. A United States resident since 1994, Sharapova has competed on the WTA tour since 2001. She has been ranked world No. 1 in singles by the WTA on five separate occasions, for a total of 21 weeks. She is one of ten women, and the only Russian, to hold the career Grand Slam. She is also an Olympic medalist, having earned silver for Russia in women's singles at the 2012 Summer Olympics in London.
Binging Serena Williams brings up this:
Serena Jameka Williams is an American professional tennis player who is ranked No. 1 in women's singles tennis. The Women's Tennis Association has ranked her world No. 1 in singles on six separate occasions. She became the world No. 1 for the first time on July 8, 2002, and achieved this ranking for the sixth time on February 18, 2013. She is the reigning champion of the French Open, Wimbledon and Olympic women's singles and doubles. Williams is popularly regarded as the greatest female tennis player of all time.
So while Williams may be "popularly regarded as the greatest female tennis player of all time" looking at the above it is at least arguable which one has the most accomplishments as an athlete. Though it would appear that Sharapova hasn't been able to beat Williams since 2004.
Also, according to Wikipedia Williams has a net worth of $140 Million, Sharapovo's is $125 Million.
But if you brought up any of these facts at the indoctrination session in order to support the supposition that perhaps Williams is not as oppressed as say, I don't know, maybe Ugandan maids in Saudia Arabia (http://news.yahoo.com/uganda-brings-maids-home-saudi-arabia-abuse-complaints-121855582.html) you would be marked by the Red Guards as a racist and hater. So you keep your opinions to yourself and nurse the resentment you feel.
Oh, and you vote for Donald Trump.
"Don't worry about the kids. They see through bullcrap with a clear vision of reality."
The ones who see diversity as a path to power do not. That includes most of the political appointees of the Obama administration.
Sex sells, and more people, both men and women, black and white, would rather have sex with Maria Sharapova than Serena Williams. Perhaps even Serena Williams might like a trip around the block with Maria.
They don't know that at the University of Missouri?
1) When did indoctrination become ok at a university?
2) Where is the diversity of conservative or Christian faculty?
3) What happened to tolerance? These students can't disagree with the teacher. I think back to my HS history teacher who steadfastly refused to tell us how she voted or her view of politics. The students loved her and would have followed her into battle, but she knew better.
Read Thomas Sowell's The Quest for Cosmic Justice. He points out many examples of minorities in various parts of the world, with no power at all, who have been consistently more successful than average, from Jews to Chinese in Malaysia etc. Cannot blame those on an imbalance of power.
4) The charge that all white people are racists but no one else is boggles the mind. Individual whites have no "power" to enforce racism, and racial hatred is not a monopoly of any one group.
"Don't worry about the kids. They see through bullcrap with a clear vision of reality."
My son is a rebel, a freshman at a Northern liberal arts college, and is veering right by the day. He is sending me links to YouTube vids of Margaret Thatcher and Dinesh D'Sousa. They have made a grave mistake by bringing their indoctrination out in the open. It worked great when it worked subtly. Now the shark has been jumped and the bright young ones are not buying it.
I'm all broken up about that multi-millionaire athlete's oppression.
Why does Dirk Nowitzki earn less in endorsements than:
Lebron James
Kobe Bryant
Derrick Rose
Kevin Durant
Dwayne Wade
Carmelo Anthony
Dwight Howard
Chris Paul
Must be racism, eh?
"They have made a grave mistake by bringing their indoctrination out in the open."
I agree. My daughter had an English composition class and the last day of class, which was supposed to be for "review" was taken by the grad student teacher for an hour rant about Reagan and how he was an actor who mouthed lines written by others, etc.
Most of that stuff is over by the time they get to their majors but freshmen get indoctrinated.
I have read a couple of stories about STEM majors being required to take "diversity" classes. One instructor was shouted down. U of Oklahoma seems to be getting negative feedback about such a plan.
Unknown wrote:
4) The charge that all white people are racists but no one else is boggles the mind. Individual whites have no "power" to enforce racism, and racial hatred is not a monopoly of any one group.
I don't think that they actually saying all white people are racists, Unknown, the people who promote the idea that society is racist believe that racism is a structure within the narrative discourse that is society. It is based on a literary theory developed back in the 1900s by a Swiss linguist named Ferdinand de Saussure.
The people who believe that racism is an expression of society that government can address do not believe that they are hapless expressions of social discourse. They believe everyone else is.
“We like to think it’s all about merit,” said Dr. Brooks, a sociology professor at the University of Missouri, speaking in the casual cadence of his days as a nightclub D.J. “It’s sport. Simply, the best should earn the most money.”
People this clueless shouldn't be allowed any contact with students.
Sharapova has more endorsements than Williams because she's attractive and Williams looks like a man. That may not matter to you if you only care about the sport, but it certainly matters to advertisers.
The purpose of these kinds of "sessions" is to humiliate the white men. They're not building a damn bridge to anywhere - it's a naked exercise of power.
Umm..can we discuss Nobel prize winners too?
It's not really fair to compare Sharapova to Kournikova. Sharapova is legitimately one of the all time great female tennis players, though not as great as Serena. Kournikova was always overrated and got by on her looks.
"It's not really fair to compare Sharapova to Kournikova."
Unless they are both naked.
Then it is perfectly fair.
We can compare their Vowels.
I am Laslo.
"But there's also Usain Bolt, #1, Tiger Woods, #3, George Foreman, #4, Michael Jordan, #6 — all black men." Tiger Woods is only half black. The rest is "white or Asian."
"I'm embarrassed to say I pay taxes that support such an intellectually and morally bankrupt institution as the University of Missouri." How can one be embarrassed by the results of something one is forced to contribute to so as to avoid being placed in a cage?
Leftists acting like totalitarians.
How...unexpected.
David said...
""Don't worry about the kids. They see through bullcrap with a clear vision of reality."
"Some do. Some do not."
And it's the latter group that is interested in careers in academia and HR.
Walking while black
Studying 2016-humanities while white
What do they have in common? Nothing. Anything they do have in common in the sense that good parents prepare their children to handle a certain situations without comment is not really anything in common. At all.
I think that universities should ask themselves whether they have blacks to whites in universities in the same proportion as the black graduation rate from high school is to the white. In other words the issue isn't: what is the proportion of blacks to whites in the state of Wisconsin with the assumption that racism is at work if universities don't have the same proportion. Instead the issue is: are blacks who graduate from high school in Wisconsin entering college in the same proportion as whites who graduate from high school in that state?
Then you can ask why blacks graduate at a lower rate from high school and do worse in every grade. If you are convinced as I am that blacks are just as intelligent then these bad grades and their inevitable consequences of a lifetime of poverty - they are the sign of a horrendous tragedy. But what is the mechanism that causes this to happen? Just saying "racism" or creating re-education camps as a sign of liberalism isn't going to help a single black child. What is the actual mechanism at work? I myself simply don't know. Eugenics feeds off the situation but something else causes it. But what?
something else causes it. But what?
A culture of governmental dependency.
This diversity crap is not some sideline that colleges are into. Look at the budgets, look at the people they hire and the bureaucracies they create that add virtually nothing to the value of an education -- for the student. Racial diversity, gender equality, and environmentalism are the reasons colleges exist today. They are what makes colleges (in their eyes) more than glorified technical/vocational schools. They determine the direction society takes. They determine the bounds of acceptable social discourse.
Athlete A makes more than Athlete B.
Athlete B is black
Therefore, Racism.
This is known as the "Post Hoc" fallacy, inferring causation from correlation.
It's a logical error most people learn about in high school.
Almost everyone can spot it immediately except for the New York Times and Dr. Brooks.
Dr. Brooks is not a scholar, he's just a loudmouthed fool. No self respecting university would have him on its faculty.
Serena gets her endorsements because she is recognized as the greatest female tennis player in the world.
Maria gets her endorsements because she is a recognizable tennis player who is tall, thin, blonde, and white, which is a great combination for success in any field.
If she didn't play tennis, Maria might still be able to make money by endorsing certain products, or at least modeling for them.
If Serena didn't play tennis, what company would pay her to promote their products? None, I think.
Post a Comment