Two-thirds of US colleges, universities require DEI classes to graduate: report

[ThatRobGuy]

So the issue lies not with DEI itself, but with the instructors or materials. A poor math teacher doesn't imply that teaching mathematics to student is a flawed concept.

Correct (mostly)

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong about teaching on the concepts of diversity and inclusion (equity would be another story, the concept of trying to achieve equity - as opposed to equality - is a direct outgrowth of critical theory).

However, I think the reason that people may bristle a bit at the notion of 2/3 of US colleges requiring it, is due to the type of DEI training that's more likely to be taught in colleges.

I had mentioned before, there's two types, the non-Marxist type on the Marxist type.

The non-Marxist type would be what's more commonly associated with a sensitivity training one may find in a corporate environment.

However, based on polling data of young people, it would seem as if the way colleges are doing it is more often falling into the latter type.


I'm basing that on what being seen in polling results like these:

Poll: Almost 40% of College and University Undergraduates Nationwide Favor Socialism

Socialism is slowly rising amongst college youth.

www.collegemedianetwork.com

College Kids Don't Understand Socialism—or Capitalism

Higher education is increasingly going in the wrong direction. In order to continue the cause of human flourishing, colleges need to do a better job of teaching students about the progress humans have made.

www.newsweek.com

70 percent of college students say speech can be as damaging as physical violence

In a new survey from the Knight Foundation, more than 1 in 4 college students agreed schools should prohibit "speech they may find offensive or biased"

reason.com

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/26/1164832694/to-help-new-students-adapt-some-colleges-are-eliminating-grades

Polling results like these would indicate that a "not insignificant" number of colleges are conducting those courses in ways that are leaving students with the more radical viewpoints on the subject.


You don't end up with a "down with capitalism, tear it all down, ban offensive speech, eliminate the concept of grades so that there's no disparity in outcomes" mentality after a few 1-hour lectures on basic tolerance and diversity.

Either some faculty are instructing on those topics in such a way to produce those outcomes on purpose, or they're unintentionally giving some students some very one-sided instruction on those subjects.

 

[BCP1928]

It is important to distinguish between Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and Critical Race Theory (CRT), as they are separate topics. DEI is not the same as CRT, and vice versa.

Give the guy a break. CRT has created even more evil that he hasn't gotten to yet. It teaches intersectionality. For example, that a black woman's experience of racism might be different than a black man's. It discusses the possibility that quite a bit of what is felt as racism is based on class rather than race. It even reveals that there are other aspects of racism, for example that blacks and Hispanics have racial issues.

 

[BCP1928]

Correct (mostly)

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong about teaching on the concepts of diversity and inclusion (equity would be another story, the concept of trying to achieve equity - as opposed to equality - is a direct outgrowth of critical theory).

However, I think the reason that people may bristle a bit at the notion of 2/3 of US colleges requiring it, is due to the type of DEI training that's more likely to be taught in colleges.

I had mentioned before, there's two types, the non-Marxist type on the Marxist type.

The non-Marxist type would be what's more commonly associated with a sensitivity training one may find in a corporate environment.

However, based on polling data of young people, it would seem as if the way colleges are doing it is more often falling into the latter type.


I'm basing that on what being seen in polling results like these:

Poll: Almost 40% of College and University Undergraduates Nationwide Favor Socialism

Socialism is slowly rising amongst college youth.

www.collegemedianetwork.com

College Kids Don't Understand Socialism—or Capitalism

Higher education is increasingly going in the wrong direction. In order to continue the cause of human flourishing, colleges need to do a better job of teaching students about the progress humans have made.

www.newsweek.com

70 percent of college students say speech can be as damaging as physical violence

In a new survey from the Knight Foundation, more than 1 in 4 college students agreed schools should prohibit "speech they may find offensive or biased"

reason.com

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/26/1164832694/to-help-new-students-adapt-some-colleges-are-eliminating-grades

Polling results like these would indicate that a "not insignificant" number of colleges are conducting those courses in ways that are leaving students with the more radical viewpoints on the subject.


You don't end up with a "down with capitalism, tear it all down, ban offensive speech, eliminate the concept of grades so that there's no disparity in outcomes" mentality after a few 1-hour lectures on basic tolerance and diversity.

Either some faculty are instructing on those topics in such a way to produce those outcomes on purpose, or they're unintentionally giving some students some very one-sided instruction on those subjects.

Either that or they are figuring it out for themselves. Anyway, it's good news.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Correct (mostly)

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong about teaching on the concepts of diversity and inclusion (equity would be another story, the concept of trying to achieve equity - as opposed to equality - is a direct outgrowth of critical theory).

However, I think the reason that people may bristle a bit at the notion of 2/3 of US colleges requiring it, is due to the type of DEI training that's more likely to be taught in colleges.

I had mentioned before, there's two types, the non-Marxist type on the Marxist type.

The non-Marxist type would be what's more commonly associated with a sensitivity training one may find in a corporate environment.

However, based on polling data of young people, it would seem as if the way colleges are doing it is more often falling into the latter type.


I'm basing that on what being seen in polling results like these:

Poll: Almost 40% of College and University Undergraduates Nationwide Favor Socialism

Socialism is slowly rising amongst college youth.

www.collegemedianetwork.com

College Kids Don't Understand Socialism—or Capitalism

Higher education is increasingly going in the wrong direction. In order to continue the cause of human flourishing, colleges need to do a better job of teaching students about the progress humans have made.

www.newsweek.com

70 percent of college students say speech can be as damaging as physical violence

In a new survey from the Knight Foundation, more than 1 in 4 college students agreed schools should prohibit "speech they may find offensive or biased"

reason.com

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/26/1164832694/to-help-new-students-adapt-some-colleges-are-eliminating-grades

Polling results like these would indicate that a "not insignificant" number of colleges are conducting those courses in ways that are leaving students with the more radical viewpoints on the subject.


You don't end up with a "down with capitalism, tear it all down, ban offensive speech, eliminate the concept of grades so that there's no disparity in outcomes" mentality after a few 1-hour lectures on basic tolerance and diversity.

Either some faculty are instructing on those topics in such a way to produce those outcomes on purpose, or they're unintentionally giving some students some very one-sided instruction on those subjects.

I agree with most of your points. The issue lies not with DEI itself, but with how it is taught. However, this can be said about almost any subject taught in schools. Some schools excel in their teaching methods, while others do not meet the enrollment worthiness standard.

Instead of attacking DEI, conservatives should focus on improving its quality and educating youth effectively. Conservatives often criticize educational institutions but are hesitant to engage in efforts to enhance education. When they do get involved, they tend to focus more on eliminating certain aspects rather than improving overall quality.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I agree with most of your points. The issue lies not with DEI itself, but with how it is taught. However, this can be said about almost any subject taught in schools. Some schools excel in their teaching methods, while others do not meet the enrollment worthiness standard.

Instead of attacking DEI, conservatives should focus on improving its quality and educating youth effectively. Conservatives often criticize educational institutions but are hesitant to engage in efforts to enhance education. When they do get involved, they tend to focus more on eliminating certain aspects rather than improving overall quality.

I can't speak to the exclusively conservative viewpoint on this...while I lean conservative on a few subjects, I'm more in the "centrist realm"

I think the reason why many conservatives don't enter that arena anymore is because they already view it as an "ideologically captured institution"

In 1994, the ideological viewpoints coming out where much more balanced. (and that's in 1994, when the divides on social issues were much smaller than they are now -- there wasn't exactly rigorously high bar to clear to be "progressive" back then. Basically, pro-pot, okay with gay people, and against music censorship, and you were 90% of the way there)

But a lot has obviously changed between 1994 and 2015.

They probably also see it as a "rigged game" to a degree, and they're not entirely wrong. Once an institution has been mostly captured, and the rules have been written in such a way that dissenting opinions are grounds for dismissal, how does one even wade into that pool?

For example: How does one instruct on both viewpoints of the gender topic, if one set of viewpoints is labelled as hate speech and can get you fired?


In essence, what you're asking for would be like asking democrats who are moderate on gun control, "instead of complaining about the gun-nuts, why don't you join the NRA and try to reform it from within?" (after the mindset of "no! no restrictions, anyone who says otherwise is a just gun-grabber who supports tyranny!" has been established as the overwhelmingly prevailing groupthink for 2 decades)


Another challenge would be when there's such a wide chasm in views that there are "two realities" with no overlap.

 

[Valletta]

Instead of attacking DEI, conservatives should focus on improving its quality and educating youth effectively. Conservatives often criticize educational institutions but are hesitant to engage in efforts to enhance education. When they do get involved, they tend to focus more on eliminating certain aspects rather than improving overall quality.

Incorrect. Conservatives have pushed hard for schools to teach basic English and math. Sub-standard teachers need to be removed, with the tenure system eliminated. A voucher system would give poor children a chance to go to quality schools. The left has fought these initiatives as our children keep falling behind children in so many other countries. Teaching children that they are victims because of their race does great harm to the kids. For example, we have a large Somalian population here that does not do well. Nigerians do very well, I will post an article showing some of the reasons behind their success. Obviously race is not the difference, but it goes against the left's teaching of victimhood.

https://medium.com/@joecarleton/why-nigerian-immigrants-are-the-most-successful-ethnic-group-in-the-u-s-23a7ea5a0832

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Incorrect. Conservatives have pushed hard for schools to teach basic English and math. Sub-standard teachers need to be removed, with the tenure system eliminated. A voucher system would give poor children a chance to go to quality schools. The left has fought these initiatives as our children keep falling behind children in so many other countries. Teaching children that they are victims because of their race does great harm to the kids. For example, we have a large Somalian population here that does not do well. Nigerians do very well, I will post an article showing some of the reasons behind their success. Obviously race is not the difference, but it goes against the left's teaching of victimhood.

https://medium.com/@joecarleton/why-nigerian-immigrants-are-the-most-successful-ethnic-group-in-the-u-s-23a7ea5a0832

School system reforms often encounter resistance from teachers' unions, which protect underperforming teachers and generally support Democrats. Similarly, police unions resist law enforcement reforms and protect problematic officers, typically supporting Republicans. Politicians align with these unions accordingly, illustrating a common pattern across different areas.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

I can't speak to the exclusively conservative viewpoint on this...while I lean conservative on a few subjects, I'm more in the "centrist realm"

I think the reason why many conservatives don't enter that arena anymore is because they already view it as an "ideologically captured institution"

View attachment 359391

In 1994, the ideological viewpoints coming out where much more balanced. (and that's in 1994, when the divides on social issues were much smaller than they are now -- there wasn't exactly rigorously high bar to clear to be "progressive" back then. Basically, pro-pot, okay with gay people, and against music censorship, and you were 90% of the way there)

But a lot has obviously changed between 1994 and 2015.

They probably also see it as a "rigged game" to a degree, and they're not entirely wrong. Once an institution has been mostly captured, and the rules have been written in such a way that dissenting opinions are grounds for dismissal, how does one even wade into that pool?

For example: How does one instruct on both viewpoints of the gender topic, if one set of viewpoints is labelled as hate speech and can get you fired?


In essence, what you're asking for would be like asking democrats who are moderate on gun control, "instead of complaining about the gun-nuts, why don't you join the NRA and try to reform it from within?" (after the mindset of "no! no restrictions, anyone who says otherwise is a just gun-grabber who supports tyranny!" has been established as the overwhelmingly prevailing groupthink for 2 decades)


Another challenge would be when there's such a wide chasm in views that there are "two realities" with no overlap.

Thank you for providing this information.

The political landscape in America has not necessarily shifted towards conservatism or liberalism, but rather shows increased intolerance towards different ideas and ways of life. This highlights the need for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

I believe transgender lifestyle is sinful and wrong, but I believe every transgender American has the same rights as I do. This does not mean that an individual who has undergone gender transition should have the right to share the same bathroom facilities as my wife. I can respect a transgender person while maintaining my rights.

Or here is another example, supporting Israel does not preclude believing in a two-state solution, just as supporting Palestinians does not imply that Israel should vacate Jerusalem.

The problem we are encountering today is that, in this complex world, many individuals perceive matters in black and white terms. This perspective does not benefit anyone; instead, it fosters division and animosity.

 

[rambot]

I can't speak to the exclusively conservative viewpoint on this...while I lean conservative on a few subjects, I'm more in the "centrist realm"

I think the reason why many conservatives don't enter that arena anymore is because they already view it as an "ideologically captured institution"

View attachment 359391

In 1994, the ideological viewpoints coming out where much more balanced. (and that's in 1994, when the divides on social issues were much smaller than they are now -- there wasn't exactly rigorously high bar to clear to be "progressive" back then. Basically, pro-pot, okay with gay people, and against music censorship, and you were 90% of the way there)

But a lot has obviously changed between 1994 and 2015.

They probably also see it as a "rigged game" to a degree, and they're not entirely wrong. Once an institution has been mostly captured, and the rules have been written in such a way that dissenting opinions are grounds for dismissal, how does one even wade into that pool?

For example: How does one instruct on both viewpoints of the gender topic, if one set of viewpoints is labelled as hate speech and can get you fired?


In essence, what you're asking for would be like asking democrats who are moderate on gun control, "instead of complaining about the gun-nuts, why don't you join the NRA and try to reform it from within?" (after the mindset of "no! no restrictions, anyone who says otherwise is a just gun-grabber who supports tyranny!" has been established as the overwhelmingly prevailing groupthink for 2 decades)


Another challenge would be when there's such a wide chasm in views that there are "two realities" with no overlap.

But it also seems like it could be a "chicken and egg" situation, non?

I mean, Asimov and his "cult of ignorance" comment did not come out of nowhere and that was back a while ago. Conservatives generally has often positioned itself as anti-science (or at least anti "new knowledge in science") and have been over that same amount of time too. The criticism of evolution; homosexuality; climate change; vaccinations etc... certainly have a left wing component (though they tend to be WAAAY further to the left), but it appears closer to the mainstream right wing beliefs that science and research is worthy of being dismissed as long as someone you agree with politically can find a scientists to agree with him.

I would CERTAINLY agree that the social sciences have moved to the left. But there's a LOT of learning that really hasn't moved much: physicists, engineering, ecologists....the hard sciences. Unfortunately, we don't see much nuance in the criticism of universities.

 

[Valletta]

Thank you for providing this information.

The political landscape in America has not necessarily shifted towards conservatism or liberalism, but rather shows increased intolerance towards different ideas and ways of life. This highlights the need for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

I believe transgender lifestyle is sinful and wrong, but I believe every transgender American has the same rights as I do. This does not mean that an individual who has undergone gender transition should have the right to share the same bathroom facilities as my wife. I can respect a transgender person while maintaining my rights.

Or here is another example, supporting Israel does not preclude believing in a two-state solution, just as supporting Palestinians does not imply that Israel should vacate Jerusalem.

The problem we are encountering today is that, in this complex world, many individuals perceive matters in black and white terms. This perspective does not benefit anyone; instead, it fosters division and animosity.

There is discrimination and racism inherent in DEI and CRT. The majority of states have bills to either halt or curtail these dangerous divisive philosophies.

 

[Pommer]

There is discrimination and racism inherent in DEI and CRT. The majority of states have bills to either halt or curtail these dangerous divisive philosophies.

Should we just keep everything the same and change nothing, forever?

 

[RileyG]

Should we just keep everything the same and change nothing, forever?

I’m not opposed to teaching CRT or DEI as elective courses or required based on major. In order to be educated, the student needs to learn from ALL points of view.

My opinion only

 

[Yttrium]

I'll tell you what. If someone can show me a case of a state college requiring a physics major to take a DEI course in order to graduate, I'll start getting concerned. If two-thirds of colleges are involved, it should be easy.

 

[Pommer]

I'll tell you what. If someone can show me a case of a state college requiring a physics major to take a DEI course in order to graduate, I'll start getting concerned. If two-thirds of colleges are involved, it should be easy.

The NYP article in the OP referenced a “report” that was done by a advocacy-group decrying the state of education with regard to DEI & CRT. Here is that report, heavily laden with emote-sprecht.

 

[Fantine]

Thanks for the chain of links to the Speech First document. It's useful to listen to that point of view, and I've filed it away for future reference.

Obviously, I don't think it's a bad thing that lots of colleges and universities are teaching ethics to their students. But the document is a good reminder that rules and laws have limits in teaching ethical behavior. If we don't actually persuade people that inclusion of others is a good thing, then all those rules and laws will just be perceived as persecution.

It's also a good reminder that the academic environment has to carefully balance free speech on the one hand with the need to teach what is good and true on the other hand. Part of it, I think, is always being prepared to explain why the inclusion of others is a good thing; explaining stuff is our mission, after all.

I like how you correctly label DEI as "ethics" and not Marxism.
I took Latin in high school, and DEI means "of God." Every human being is of God. Every human being deserves respect.
What a shame that these values are not taught in every home and every house of worship.

 

[Vambram]

Jeremiah 17:9-10



Mark 7:21-23

 

[Fantine]

Re Mark 7, surely failure to love one's neighbor as oneself fits in nicely.
It is Jesus' second great commandment, and it is at the very heart of DEI.
All humankind are brothers and sisters. D
We should treat people fairly and equally. E
We must be welcoming. I

 

[Vambram]

The heart of DEI is most certainly not that we should love one's neighbor as oneself. The heart of DEI is that every one is equal regardless of the merits of one's qualities, skills, talents, experience, and qualifications.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The heart of DEI is that every one is equal regardless of the merits of one's qualities, skills, talents, experience, and qualifications.

If you can't even explain DEI properly, why should we take your criticisms of it seriously?

 

[Vambram]

If you can't even explain DEI properly, why should we take your criticisms of it seriously?

I did explain it properly with a very basic simple statement.