(03-07-2023 03:38 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  This is a very contrived example, but bear with me please. Assume that the 5 best basketball players in the country were Hispanic but none of them had the resources to be able to play basketball. The DEI goal would be to figure out how to get them the opportunity to show how good they are at basketball. If they took spots on the team that were previously held by black and white players, the percentage of black and white players goes down. You wouldn't say that those players were discriminated against, you would say that according to meritocracy the right players were now on the team.

What you’re describing sounds more like providing equal opportunity, not equity. If they were the 5 best players, then they all earn a spot based on merit, irregardless of their race. They should all be on the team. But if one of the five was given the spot over any other simply because he was Hispanic to simply achieve some equity result based on race, then that is discrimination against whoever they are replacing.

In your example, equity would simply not allow all 5 Hispanics represent the team despite being the 5 best players on merit.

(03-07-2023 03:58 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(03-07-2023 03:38 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  This is a very contrived example, but bear with me please. Assume that the 5 best basketball players in the country were Hispanic but none of them had the resources to be able to play basketball. The DEI goal would be to figure out how to get them the opportunity to show how good they are at basketball. If they took spots on the team that were previously held by black and white players, the percentage of black and white players goes down. You wouldn't say that those players were discriminated against, you would say that according to meritocracy the right players were now on the team.

What you’re describing sounds more like providing equal opportunity, not equity. If they were the 5 best players, then they all earn a spot based on merit, irregardless of their race. They should all be on the team. But if one of the five was given the spot over any other simply because he was Hispanic to simply achieve some equity result based on race, then that is discrimination against whoever they are replacing.

In your example, equity would simply not allow all 5 Hispanics represent the team despite being the 5 best players on merit.

This is from Iowa's DEI page, which I chose simply because it was the first result for "definition dei".

Equity refers to fair and just practices and policies that ensure all campus community members can thrive. Equity is different than equality in that equality implies treating everyone as if their experiences are exactly the same. Being equitable means acknowledging and addressing structural inequalities — historic and current — that advantage some and disadvantage others. Equal treatment results in equity only if everyone starts with equal access to opportunities.

Edit: here's the link https://diversity.uiowa.edu/resources/dei-definitions

(03-07-2023 01:35 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(03-07-2023 11:20 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(03-07-2023 10:21 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  What I haven’t seen is anyone who can explain how equity and meritocracy coexist without discrimination. All I’ve seen is an opinion piece written by three progressive Harvard professors on the apparent issues among those who dare challenge or oppose the equity methodology.

I think that's because the thread was about a policy change made by the UNC Board of Governors to solve a problem that's imaginary.

You do realize that’s simply your opinion. You insinuate your opinion is fact.

I'm going off of the article. There isn't anything in the article that shows an actual problem.

Kenny Xu said:
"We believe in a race blind, meritocratic society with high standards and that's what has traditionally produced excellence in the United States," Xu told Fox News Digital. "When we saw wokeness and DEI infiltrating the medical profession, that's when we became concerned because medicine is the one place where everybody knows, liberals, conservatives, independents, that you need the most qualified doctor to get the best outcome."

"When diversity, equity and inclusion says ‘No, you need doctors of a certain race’ or ‘No, we need to be teaching things from the lens of social justice rather than the biological practice of medicine,’ that's when we got concerned," he added. "

The Guidelines for Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure (APT) required applicants to submit their contributions in teaching, DEI efforts, and research accomplishments. Kenny Xu is arguing that including DEI efforts in the criteria for faculty APT somehow made it that they were no longer producing the most qualified doctors, without showing any evidence of that.

Former Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate and physician Dr. Nche Zama said:
"In the final analysis, it is a decision that is in the best interest of all our children who will come to appreciate that EXCELLENCE (not phenotypes or ethnicity) should be the ultimate standard in their lives," he told Fox News Digital.

"The catastrophic failures in our educational system are predicated in many ways on a decades-old absence of a banner of excellence in the collective and individual learning experiences of many of our children who sadly, live in a cultural milieu that fosters a diabolically pervasive psychology, promoting self-hate, entitlement, and mediocre aspirations," he added.

Dr. Zama didn't provide evidence that DEI causes EXCELLENCE to not be the ultimate standard in their lives, or what evidence there is that DEI has anything to do with the "catastrophic failures in our educational system".

Maybe there is a real problem that was being addressed, but I would hope that whoever wrote the piece would have found someone who knew what the problem was and could show that it was real. That would have been better than the two people they included.

Please know that I’m good to buy the drinks if you guys ever meet to hug it out some football weekend.

I appreciate the offer. A nice gent I’m sure though I think what’s most important to Tribeintheburg is just posting last. I truly hope he’s not a W&M professor or in the W&M admin. I would find that very depressing reading his rationale.

(03-07-2023 05:56 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  I appreciate the offer. A nice gent I’m sure though I think what’s most important to Tribeintheburg is just posting last. I truly hope he’s not a W&M professor or in the W&M admin. I would find that very depressing reading his rationale.

Oh no, I was just sticking around until all you had left was namecalling. That's universal Internet for conceding. Thanks!

And to think, we could have avoided a 40 post thread if you googled "definition dei" before the first post.

(03-08-2023 08:47 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(03-07-2023 05:56 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  I appreciate the offer. A nice gent I’m sure though I think what’s most important to Tribeintheburg is just posting last. I truly hope he’s not a W&M professor or in the W&M admin. I would find that very depressing reading his rationale.

Oh no, I was just sticking around until all you had left was namecalling. That's universal Internet for conceding. Thanks!

And to think, we could have avoided a 40 post thread if you googled "definition dei" before the first post.

Conceding to what? I called you a nice gent. That sums up your reading comprehension skills.

(03-08-2023 09:10 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(03-08-2023 08:47 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(03-07-2023 05:56 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  I appreciate the offer. A nice gent I’m sure though I think what’s most important to Tribeintheburg is just posting last. I truly hope he’s not a W&M professor or in the W&M admin. I would find that very depressing reading his rationale.

Oh no, I was just sticking around until all you had left was namecalling. That's universal Internet for conceding. Thanks!

And to think, we could have avoided a 40 post thread if you googled "definition dei" before the first post.

Conceding to what? I called you a nice gent. That sums up your reading comprehension skills.

lol, keep it coming. Inject this into my veins. It's wonderful. I'm sure you're not mad, in fact you find it funny.

Interesting debate - again in North Carolina.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/04/27/nearl...eyid=62323

(04-27-2023 08:51 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  Interesting debate - again in North Carolina.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/04/27/nearl...eyid=62323

I would have thought those NC politicians would be against expanding government mandated regulations. A better headline would be "NC House passes bill instituting education regulations". The professors aren't against the content of the courses, they're against the government dictating what universities will teach. If the politicians were looking for more than headlines and culture war fodder to fundraise on, they would have gone to the universities to work with them to implement something like this. But the politicians are more interested in giving American Heritage a headline to push and get their target audience to post on message boards.

An in-state update from VMI.

Interesting they have replaced the “equity” in DEI to “opportunity”. Some of the faculty displeased.

https://redstate.com/beckynoble/2023/04/...ad-n737668

"They" being the current VA gubernatorial administration. "They" continue to misrepresent what "equity" in DEI means. It's a masterclass in pushing outrage politics based on a strawman.

Here's the letter signed by the UNC faculty, published by the Daily Tarheel without comment: https://www.dailytarheel.com/article/202...tervention

(04-28-2023 09:36 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(04-27-2023 08:51 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  Interesting debate - again in North Carolina.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/04/27/nearl...eyid=62323

I would have thought those NC politicians would be against expanding government mandated regulations. A better headline would be "NC House passes bill instituting education regulations". The professors aren't against the content of the courses, they're against the government dictating what universities will teach. If the politicians were looking for more than headlines and culture war fodder to fundraise on, they would have gone to the universities to work with them to implement something like this. But the politicians are more interested in giving American Heritage a headline to push and get their target audience to post on message boards.

UNC Chapel Hill already requires some other courses - education regulations as you call it - per below. Seems like a course covering our founding documents would be as compelling.

Currently, UNC-Chapel Hill requires three-credit-hour courses in “Global Understanding” and “Power, Difference, & Inequality,” but not in American government.

I wish Virginia and others would do same. Some other info on the effort attached.

https://www.carolinajournal.com/bill-req...ses-house/

(05-03-2023 04:01 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(04-28-2023 09:36 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(04-27-2023 08:51 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  Interesting debate - again in North Carolina.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/04/27/nearl...eyid=62323

I would have thought those NC politicians would be against expanding government mandated regulations. A better headline would be "NC House passes bill instituting education regulations". The professors aren't against the content of the courses, they're against the government dictating what universities will teach. If the politicians were looking for more than headlines and culture war fodder to fundraise on, they would have gone to the universities to work with them to implement something like this. But the politicians are more interested in giving American Heritage a headline to push and get their target audience to post on message boards.

UNC Chapel Hill already requires some other courses - education regulations as you call it - per below. Seems like a course covering our founding documents would be as compelling.

Currently, UNC-Chapel Hill requires three-credit-hour courses in “Global Understanding” and “Power, Difference, & Inequality,” but not in American government.

I wish Virginia and others would do same. Some other info on the effort attached.

https://www.carolinajournal.com/bill-req...ses-house/

You should read right-wing websites more critically. The whole point of the link you posted is to gin up false outrage and fundraising soundbites.

When I was at W&M we had Area/Sequence requirements that were effectively the same thing as UNC's Focus Capabilites. It meant you can't get a degree by taking all science classes, you have to broaden your education. UNC's website is pretty poorly worded, because it uses the word "course" to mean both a specific course as well as an area of study. I italicized below where that happens. Here's the 9 Focus Capacities for UNC: (https://catalog.unc.edu/undergraduate/ideas-in-action/)
"Design your course of study! Students take one course for each of the nine Focus Capacity courses (3 credits each) plus a one-credit Empirical Investigation Lab. Focus Capacity courses introduce and reinforce a broad set of capacities for identifying, discovering, evaluating, and taking action upon ideas, knowledge, evidence, and argument. Each of these courses will provide students with opportunities for writing, collaboration with peers, and presenting material in a variety of setting and methods."

1. Aesthetic and Interpretive Analysis
2. Creative Expression, Practice, and Production
3. Engagement with the Human Past
4. Ethical and Civic Values
5. Global Understanding and Engagement
6. Natural Scientific Investigation
7. Power, Difference, and Inequality
8. Quantitative Reasoning
9. Ways of Knowing
   

From the UNC website: (https://catalog.unc.edu/undergraduate/id...nequality/)
"Power, Difference, and Inequality (FC-POWER) is a required Focus Capacity course in the IDEAs in Action curriculum.

A single course may be used to fulfill only one Focus Capacity requirement (not including lab). "

It then lists hundreds of courses that can satisfy the FC-POWER requirement, including:

• PHIL 70 - First-Year Seminar: Gateway to Philosophy, Politics, and Economics
• NAVS 411 - Amphibious Warfare
• PLCY 220 - The Politics of Public Policy
• PLCY 360 - State and Local Politics
• PWAD 238 - The American Revolution, 1763-1815
  

Among literally hundreds of other courses. The bill wasn't necessary, even if you set aside that passing laws to dictate educational curriculum is wrong.

All of this took me about 15-30 minutes to google and read. If all I read was the Carolina Journal, aka the John Locke Foundation, aka Art Pope, then I'd think that the NC House of Representatives were patriots trying to make sure that students are getting an education about what it means to be American. When I read the first search result for "Power, Difference, & Equality" I found out that it's all politics devoid of substance. Do better.

(05-03-2023 04:01 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  UNC Chapel Hill already requires some other courses - education regulations as you call it - per below.

I wanted to address this specifically. A university deciding their criteria for issuing a diploma is not "education regulations". "Education regulations" are when politicians pass laws to dictate curriculum. Clearly this was a source of confusion, so I wanted to make sure my words were not being misrepresented.

When I was at W&M, we were required to take English 101 (not sure why) and a swimming test. I don’t think they require the swimming any longer - it was only to make sure you could tread water and swim a couple laps. I actually liked the effort, it helps everybody. Maybe that’s considered right wing now.

But be real, States and Universities are requiring many things these days beyond just course requirements, whether it be specifics on applications, new rules, speech, living areas, etc. I don’t see why a requirement on our Founding documents is so offensive? It’s the states representatives - elected by the people - for state/taxpayer supported universities - setting this guideline, not some bureaucratic wing. It’s called Democracy. No different than the updated guidelines at VMI - which you shrug off as coming from the new gubernatorial leadership in Virginia - also elected by the people of Virginia - and in large part to address issues within public education.

But politics aside, it’s tough for me to see why teaching our youth the founding documents of the country they live is so controversial. Those documents are universally American, not Republican or Democrat. It’s our history.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/03/us/us...a8f75186a0

(05-04-2023 06:56 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  But politics aside, it’s tough for me to see why teaching our youth the founding documents of the country they live is so controversial. Those documents are universally American, not Republican or Democrat. It’s our history.

I guess I'll say it again, since you didn't see it in the other posts. Teaching our youth the founding documents of the country they live in is not controversial. Passing laws that dictate that courses exist and the contents of the course is wrong. Universities should dictate their curriculum.

On top of that, read the bill, it doesn't put forth any kind of standard that would accomplish teaching anyone anything. As the bill is written, a course would meet the standards if the students all read the listed documents and took a one question yes or no exam, "did you read the Constitution". Laws are bad at what this bill is theoretically specifically intended to do. Virginia elementary school children take civics classes that meet the law's standard. HB 96 was not legislation to designed to do anything. The purpose was for the bill to exist so that sites like redstate.com and the John Locke Foundation could write stories about it and generate outrage.

One last time to make sure it gets across. Teaching our youth the founding documents of the country they live in is not controversial. None of the links you posted have anyone disagreeing with teaching students about the documents in HB 96 or even disagreeing with requiring students to learn about the documents in HB 96. The disagreement is with the NC House passing a law to dictate curriculum at universities. Politicians should not be deciding educational requirements via legislature.

(05-04-2023 09:37 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 06:56 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  But politics aside, it’s tough for me to see why teaching our youth the founding documents of the country they live is so controversial. Those documents are universally American, not Republican or Democrat. It’s our history.

I guess I'll say it again, since you didn't see it in the other posts.

On top of that, read the bill.

One last time to make sure it gets across.

In case anyone wanted more evidence why the elected leadership and direction in Virginia (and North Carolina) have shifted.

(05-04-2023 11:00 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 09:37 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 06:56 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  But politics aside, it’s tough for me to see why teaching our youth the founding documents of the country they live is so controversial. Those documents are universally American, not Republican or Democrat. It’s our history.

I guess I'll say it again, since you didn't see it in the other posts.

On top of that, read the bill.

One last time to make sure it gets across.

In case anyone wanted more evidence why the elected leadership and direction in Virginia (and North Carolina) have shifted.

So we're in agreement, everyone thinks it's a good idea to have a course teaching founding documents. It's a bad idea to pass laws that tell universities what to teach.

(05-04-2023 01:25 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 11:00 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 09:37 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 06:56 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  But politics aside, it’s tough for me to see why teaching our youth the founding documents of the country they live is so controversial. Those documents are universally American, not Republican or Democrat. It’s our history.

I guess I'll say it again, since you didn't see it in the other posts.

On top of that, read the bill.

One last time to make sure it gets across.

In case anyone wanted more evidence why the elected leadership and direction in Virginia (and North Carolina) have shifted.

So we're in agreement, everyone thinks it's a good idea to have a course teaching founding documents. It's a bad idea to pass laws that tell universities what to teach.

Yes! Agree on the first. On the other, I think it’s a good idea that citizens get a voice on how their tax supported/state agencies and Universities operate even if that means by legal means through their elected reps. I don’t think professors or academic administrators hold some higher authority than the public that supports them.

(05-04-2023 02:37 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 01:25 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 11:00 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 09:37 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 06:56 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  But politics aside, it’s tough for me to see why teaching our youth the founding documents of the country they live is so controversial. Those documents are universally American, not Republican or Democrat. It’s our history.

I guess I'll say it again, since you didn't see it in the other posts.

On top of that, read the bill.

One last time to make sure it gets across.

In case anyone wanted more evidence why the elected leadership and direction in Virginia (and North Carolina) have shifted.

So we're in agreement, everyone thinks it's a good idea to have a course teaching founding documents. It's a bad idea to pass laws that tell universities what to teach.

Yes! Agree on the first. On the other, I think it’s a good idea that citizens get a voice on how their tax supported/state agencies and Universities operate even if that means by legal means through their elected reps. I don’t think professors or academic administrators hold some higher authority than the public that supports them.

Sure, but this is the opposite. Politicians decided university policy while rejecting university input. I don't think it's controversial to have professional educators deciding education policy at the institutions the professional educators are responsible for running.