Everybody knows blondes aren’t as smart as people with other hair colors. Because that’s just the way blondes are, they should be held to a lesser academic standard so that they can get into high demand college programs and make good grades.
OK, I don’t actually believe that, and I don’t believe in the stereotypical blonde. (Well, maybe I sort of do.) Whatever the case, just because blondes have that stereotype doesn’t mean they should get special privileges in order to advance in school more easily or advance in the work place. They should be treated as everyone else is treated and get good grades when they show their teacher that they know and understand the material.
I know it sounds like I’m stating the obvious, but this scenario with the blonde is really no different than what officials at the University of Wisconsin are wanting to do in the name of “diversity.” Instead of hair color diversity, it’s racial, religious, sexual orientation, emotional, personality, learning style, socio-economic, and political diversity. And other traits that make us up as individuals. They might as well have included hair color. In fact, I’m wondering why they excluded hair color. I wonder why they hate hair so much.
This diversity program at the University of Wisconsin was brought to light in an op-ed written by economics professor emeritus W. Lee Hansen. I suggest reading the whole piece, but here’s part of it:
That framework includes eight essential “working definitions,” among them the already-discussed diversity, as well as others: “compositional diversity,” “critical mass,” “inclusion,” “equity mindedness,” “deficit-mindedness,” “representational equity,” and “excellence.”
Let us take a closer look at one of these working definitions included, namely “representational equity.”
It calls for “proportional participation of historically underrepresented racial-ethnic groups at all levels of an institution, including high status special programs, high-demand majors, and in the distribution of grades.”
We are not told exactly what adherence to this will entail. It appears to mean that directors of programs and departmental chairs will have to somehow ensure that they have a mix of students with just the right percentages of individuals who embody the various “differences” included in the definition of diversity. I cannot see how that is possible and even if it were, how it improves any student’s education.
Suppose there were a surge of interest in a high demand field such as computer science. Under the “equity” policy, it seems that some of those who want to study this field would be told that they’ll have to choose another major because computer science already has “enough” students from their “difference” group.
Especially shocking is the language about “equity” in the distribution of grades. Professors, instead of just awarding the grade that each student earns, would apparently have to adjust them so that academically weaker, “historically underrepresented racial/ethnic” students perform at the same level and receive the same grades as academically stronger students.
It seems to me that in these administrators’ zeal to “celebrate diversity” and appeal to minority groups, they’re actually insulting them. In essence, they’re telling minorities, “Everyone knows that Blacks and Hispanics are dumb. Therefore, we’re going to make it easy on you so that you get good grades just like your privileged White and Asian counterparts.”
You can celebrate diversity without granting special rights and privileges to certain groups. Granting special rights based on race only stirs up racial animosity, the exact opposite of what these sanctimonious administrators claim they want.