Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.
The focus this time: That is not dead that can DEI, and with woke eons, even DEI bans may die.
First, a little mood music:
Carrying on…
California is often called the land of “fruit & nuts”; it certainly is the land of DEI, particularly at U.C. Santa Cruz.
“The University of California, Santa Cruz’s Art’s Dean is awarding diversity, equity, and inclusion grants of up to $3,000 to students who demonstrate their commitment to DEI principles.
“One question the school wishes students to pursue in applying for the grant is, “What steps are you taking on in intellectually interrogating your own personal story and your institution’s history in investigating and generating impactful actions towards DEI?”
“Those who receive the grant are tasked with work on helping the division ‘lead the nation in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) through the arts.’ The grant is titled ‘University of the Future, Now!’ The deadline to apply is Friday, December 13.
“‘These grants encourage our students to participate in the division’s aspirations to lead the nation in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) through the arts,’ the school’s advertisement says.”
In South Carolina, which in contrast to California is considered far more conservative, DEI still thrives.
“For several years, the National Association of Scholars (NAS), where I work, has monitored the rise of ‘Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion’ (DEI) in higher education. DEI entered the mainstream somewhere between the election of Donald Trump in 2016 and the death of George Floyd in the spring of 2020. In addition to being a set of ideals, sometimes including ‘anti-racism” and/or “social justice,’ DEI is a set of practices and programs descended from affirmative action and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“Recent backlash from both the public and conservative lawmakers, however, has caused some universities, such as the University of South Carolina (USC), to change DEI offices, giving them names more in line with Civil Rights-era norms. Yet, while the names of these departments have in some cases changed, their practices have largely continued unassailed. For over 50 years, universities have interpreted the Civil Rights Act as a mandate to racially balance their populations. The landmark Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case in 1978 permitted the use of race in student admissions. In the name of increasing ‘diversity,’ universities have extended racial spoils far beyond admissions to faculty, staff, and even contractor hiring. For example, Mylene Culbreath, vice dean for diversity, equity, and inclusion at the University of South Carolina, describes the mission of her office as ‘creat[ing] greater parity between the demographic composition of the university and the communities we serve.’
“Sadly, Culbreath’s words are more than just talk at the Palmetto State’s flagship public university. Strategic plans written by department chairs, deans, and presidents, often with the input of DEI administrators, focus heavily on the recruitment of a “diverse” faculty. USC’s College of Information and Communications, for instance, boasts a DEI plan that aligns searches for new faculty with minority population levels among students, at the university, and in the state. Success is described as increasing ‘the [School of Journalism and Mass Communications’] 2023 diversity representation from 19% in 2016 to 35% in 2023-2024, and Black faculty from 7% … in 2016 to 20% … in 2023-2024.” In material obtained by NAS, the USC College of Nursing talks of “focused efforts during the past 6-10 years to increase diversity among our faculty, staff, and students to meet the state’s population. […] Through intentional recruiting, the proportion of underrepresented race/ethnic groups (Black/African American, Latinx, Native American) has increased.’”
Medicine is still woke and drenched in DEI madness.
“[T]hey make actual victims of people such as Sheldon Rubenfeld, a doctor long affiliated with Baylor College of Medicine. Rubenfield is now on the outs because of a drawn-out bureaucratic process initiated by an ‘anonymous grievance’ filed by a med-school student offended by his use of the word ‘Palestinian’ in a lecture he gave warning students not to let their own biases affect their practice of medicine.
“Richard T. Bosshardt, another doctor, has been stuck in wokeness’s waiting room as well. A member (of sorts) of the American College of Surgeons, he once took issue with that organization’s embrace of DEI. This placed him in the bizarre situation of being banned from communicating with other surgeons through ACS channels, while the organization claims he remains a member ‘in good standing.’
“But from his unique vantage point in but not of the ACS, Bosshardt has continued to document its transformation. It, too, has encountered opposition to its DEI push. And its strategy has, similarly, not been to stop that effort, but to disguise it. Bosshardt wrote in City Journal last week that the organization has embraced the concept of ‘Inclusive Excellence’ as its DEI replacement.
“In truth, it is no replacement at all. ‘A perusal of the materials reveals that little if anything has changed in the program’s content and focus,’ Bosshardt wrote. ‘It adopts the same underlying DEI premise: that disparities of representation always indicate discrimination.’ It still cites the misleading study, popular among DEI-in-medicine advocates, that claims black babies are likelier to survive if a black doctor cares for them. A particular telling detail Bosshardt found is that what was formerly the “Office of Diversity” on the ACS website now directs to the ‘Office of Inclusive Excellence.’”
TTFN.
Pingback: In The Mailbox: 12.05.24 : The Other McCain