U of Manitoba Education faculty - 45% students slots for five "diversity categories"

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

So, incidentally, I agree that the public school system is the real disaster here. I am not actually even sure what the point of a public education is anymore? It seems to be a fairly rote process where students are advanced under a strata of different curriculums designed to suit a crude set of abilities. In reality, the public schools have the most difficult job of all.

And yes, many students are lost under that particular way of doing things. Most importantly, no student, not even the brightest is being equipped to think at the university level.

I was a graduate student, and I taught a few classes for first and second years - all of them political philosophy courses and with a very heavy writing component (typically 2 15 page papers, and then, a 3 hours final exam). I noted a few significant trend:
a) an elite cadre of students - typically 2-5% with natural inborn ability, who were able to excel regardless of difficulty,
b) an even smaller minority of kids who weren't that bright, but had good work effort, and would grind out "B's",
c) a large group of entitled students - from a wide variety of backgrounds, who had been taught ideologically, and learned ideologically, but absolutely failed because they lacked the basic skills.
d) the vast majority of students who obviously had no idea what they were doing in university or why they were doing it. Had come egregiously unprepared, and obviously did not have the merit to maintain anything more than a C or below average in university. We were encouraged to grade these students on the curve.

University should only be for the smartest. In my experience, the best are the only people smart enough to actually achieve that liberal ideal, and share it with minimal bias. Too many students I witnessed were either not able to grasp the intricacies of a liberal education (and why should they be expected to do so!?) or were already set in an ugly pattern of identity politics.

This is my problem with programs like the UofM.

Well I think you and I have both discussed before how university isn't really ground for learning anymore as much as it is for building resumes. You can't really expect kids to put a tonne of effort in when the purpose isn't the learning process itself. There's a reason for mantras such as "Cs get degrees."

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So the liberal ideal - that people look past one another's gender, race, and religion and regard one another as unique individuals - is pretty much dead? Because judging by the dogma coming from the progressive left these days, it sure looks like it.

And what about the elephant in the room when it comes to society and identity - class. In order to ensure that students from poor families have properly empathetic teachers, should be put quotas in place to increase the number of teachers who were raised in families with < 40K family income? Or raised by families with single-parents, or parents suffering from addictions? Which of the dozens of identities and social influences a person is subject to in their life do we enshrine with 'diversity' status?

I agree. Why the hell do we have wheelchair ramps anyways? Shouldn't we be viewing all of these people as equals. Get up and walk with the same legs the rest of us have!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I agree. Why the hell do we have wheelchair ramps anyways? Shouldn't we be viewing all of these people as equals. Get up and walk with the same legs the rest of us have!

Do you equate race as having the same disadvantages as someone with a physical disability?

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So the liberal ideal - that people look past one another's gender, race, and religion and regard one another as unique individuals - is pretty much dead? Because judging by the dogma coming from the progressive left these days, it sure looks like it.

And what about the elephant in the room when it comes to society and identity - class. In order to ensure that students from poor families have properly empathetic teachers, should be put quotas in place to increase the number of teachers who were raised in families with < 40K family income? Or raised by families with single-parents, or parents suffering from addictions? Which of the dozens of identities and social influences a person is subject to in their life do we enshrine with 'diversity' status?

Are you referring to dogma in my position supporting this? I don't even see how I'm supporting this from a progressive left position. My support for this kind of change is on three points: support for labour market needs, creating an improved learning experience for students in the university and differentiation of the program in the market. None of those are based on progressive left dogma.

Teaching is a practical activity. Empathy is a practical skill involved in this. A teacher education program which creates an environment to build that practical ability is providing value to their students and their future employers by doing so while also making their program stand out in the market. I would see value in hiring someone who came out of a program that differentiates itself in this way over an equivalent applicant from a program without that differentiation.

As long as no group is being ruled out regardless of merit, which students the university chooses to focus on in recruitment should be up to them based upon what they believe is going to address market needs, improve program quality and attract students to their university.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

Do you equate race as having the same disadvantages as someone with a physical disability?

Nope, I think each has its own unique set of obstacles. Just pointing out the ridiculousness of Cliff's statement. The equal rights movement isn't about ignoring what makes people different, it's about not using those differences as reasons to degrade and demean people. Acknowledging that certain segments of the population were born with more obstacles than others, and working to remove those obstacles, isn't inconsistent with that principle. There's a marked difference between formal equality and substantive equality.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

And what about the elephant in the room when it comes to society and identity - class

I thought it was males who don't read good cause it's for girls?

The issues you're bringing up aren't elephants, they're elephant sized red herrings. You're pretending to argue against one issue while actually just arguing in support of a loosely related but unconnected issue.

Should students who grew up in poverty have greater representation in the education workforce? That sounds like a great idea! Do you have a reason why that idea is somehow impacted negatively or positively by U of M's diversity categories? If anything, it's likely that you'll get your wish with more spots reserved for indigenous students, as the indigenous population in Winnipeg sits closer to poverty in general.

Honest question: Do you have an argument against this? Or could your arguments be boiled down to "Why don't we focus on this instead?"? Because I think your points are actually really great and generally true, but they have almost nothing to do with this really.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I thought it was males who don't read good cause it's for girls?

The issues you're bringing up aren't elephants, they're elephant sized red herrings. You're pretending to argue against one issue while actually just arguing in support of a loosely related but unconnected issue.

Should students who grew up in poverty have greater representation in the education workforce? That sounds like a great idea! Do you have a reason why that idea is somehow impacted negatively or positively by U of M's diversity categories? If anything, it's likely that you'll get your wish with more spots reserved for indigenous students, as the indigenous population in Winnipeg sits closer to poverty in general.

Honest question: Do you have an argument against this? Or could your arguments be boiled down to "Why don't we focus on this instead?"? Because I think your points are actually really great and generally true, but they have almost nothing to do with this really.

There has also been a healthy does of the good old "Well if we can't address every marginalized group, why bother addressing any of them?" going on as well.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

And what about the elephant in the room when it comes to society and identity - class. In order to ensure that students from poor families have properly empathetic teachers, should be put quotas in place to increase the number of teachers who were raised in families with < 40K family income? Or raised by families with single-parents, or parents suffering from addictions? Which of the dozens of identities and social influences a person is subject to in their life do we enshrine with 'diversity' status?

Interesting question. Does poverty have a culture of its own?


Probably best discussed in its own thread. Don't see what it has to so with this one.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

There has also been a healthy does of the good old "Well if we can't address every marginalized group, why bother addressing any of them?" going on as well.

No. But there are dozens of characteristics every human possesses. Which ones should be regarded as Identities with a capital I? Which mixes of these characteristics constitute Diversity with capital D?

Those who want to use these characteristics to chart social policy need to present some kind of coherent model to get people like me onboard. Or do we just follow whatever sentimental trends that influential citizens seem captivated by at any moment in time?

Alternatively, we could recognize the liberalism, in the traditional sense, rejects group identity altogether, and challenges us to look at ideas on their own merits, without reaching for the simplistic approach of lumping people into groups.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Interesting question. Does poverty have a culture of its own?

Of course it does. Class is a real thing, as much as Canadians and Americans like to delude themselves otherwise.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

No. But there are dozens of characteristics every human possesses. Which ones should be regarded as Identities with a capital I? Which mixes of these characteristics constitute Diversity with capital D?

Those who want to use these characteristics to chart social policy need to present some kind of coherent model to get people like me onboard. Or do we just follow whatever sentimental trends that influential citizens seem captivated by at any moment in time?

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. We're talking about innate traits that have historically been the basis for discrimination and subjugation; people who have faced clear systemic and interpersonal obstacles based solely on features they've inherited. I'm all for throwing the poor into that group, but you're likely going to find there's a lot of crossover.

Alternatively, we could recognize the liberalism, in the traditional sense, rejects group identity altogether, and challenges us to look at ideas on their own merits, without reaching for the simplistic approach of lumping people into groups.

Theory is great, but I like it better when reality shapes theory rather than trying to get reality to fit theory, and the reality is that people are discriminated on the basis of their constructed groups. And let's not forget that it's the oppressing classes who generally construct and define groups for subjugation in the first place. As I said, social progress isn't about being blind to what makes us different, it's about reducing the harmful conditions that are imposed on people because of their differences. Just saying "everyone is equal" doesn't make it so in practice.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

No. But there are dozens of characteristics every human possesses. Which ones should be regarded as Identities with a capital I? Which mixes of these characteristics constitute Diversity with capital D?

Those who want to use these characteristics to chart social policy need to present some kind of coherent model to get people like me onboard. Or do we just follow whatever sentimental trends that influential citizens seem captivated by at any moment in time?

The "model" in Canada is remarkably consistent acroos the human rights legislation of all provinces. They almost uniformly recognize the same unchangeable and deeply held personal characteristics (the "enumerated grounds".) Is that not coherent enough for you?

Alternatively, we could recognize the liberalism, in the traditional sense, rejects group identity altogether, and challenges us to look at ideas on their own merits, without reaching for the simplistic approach of lumping people into groups.

Rejecting group identity would seem to ignore tens of thousands of years of human history.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Rejecting group identity would seem to ignore tens of thousands of years of human history.

Hundreds of thousands, actually. But it is a central tenet of classical liberalism - that individual rights are what is important, and that rights are to be given equally to each individual, regardless of personal characteristics. Historically, that's been the best means to ward off oppression of minorities; e.g. black people are not denied rights by virtue of being black.

That's precisely where the tension is in this discussion. Rube disagrees with this and doesn't think it's effective, because he believes that systemic factors require some overcorrection to achieve what he's referring to as "substantive" equality. Cliff believes that this is prone to abuse because there's no fair judge to tweak the knobs of social justice here and decide which groups warrant the overcorrection and to what degree. Further, he's suggesting that there is something inherently dehumanizing about placing peoples' group identity on this sort of pedestal; the notion being something like "you're your own person; the fact that you're black or gay tells me almost nothing useful about you in and of itself".

Not trying to misrepresent but that seems to be where the disagreement lies, and it's a fundamental one, philosophically. It is likely heading to a point where it's going to cause a major identity crisis on the political left. We've already started down that road.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Those who want to use these characteristics to chart social policy need to present some kind of coherent model to get people like me onboard. Or do we just follow whatever sentimental trends that influential citizens seem captivated by at any moment in time?

Conveniently, they do not need you on board.

Question: Do you truly believe that increasing the representation of indigenous people to a more proportionally representative margin is nothing more than a "sentimental trend."?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Conveniently, they do not need you on board.

Question: Do you truly believe that increasing the representation of indigenous people to a more proportionally representative margin is nothing more than a "sentimental trend."?

Absolutely.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by peter12

Absolutely.

Interesting. Being termed "sentimental" I would consider it to have a lower value as a trend (or no value) which is why I don't really agree with it being a sentimental trend. Does this align with your belief as well?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Interesting. Being termed "sentimental" I would consider it to have a lower value as a trend (or no value) which is why I don't really agree with it being a sentimental trend. Does this align with your belief as well?

That's a good point, butI think that the sentiment behind these trends is so strong that is virtually unassailable from a point of reason.

So, I do think that Rube is fundamentally right. That there are certain groups of people that are falling further and further behind - indigenous people, especially, but more broadly a group of people that appears to be permanently poor. We don't know what is behind this trend, yet, but the group appears to share a pretty clear socio-economic profile - break-down of family, low participation on social institutions, etc... I've been through this before.

Clearly, classical liberalism has very little to say about these people. Indeed, with individual rights came a liberation of the individual from social institutions - ones that we are now finding out did a great deal to protect certain groups from total socio-economic collapse.

Rube seems to think that you can fix this problem by injecting bits of symbolic self-esteem, increasing public profile, and generally, increasing society's overall knowledge through a vague type of inductive education. We are now supposed to, as a whole, feel more pain for transgendered, indigenous, and mentally ill people. I actually don't think this is necessarily a bad thing - indeed, it sounds almost like that compassion thing I was talking about in another thread.

However, why I term these trends "sentimental" is because I believe the problem to be far worse than the sort of applied mimetics of emotion that Rube seems to endorse. Maybe it is right to repeat Cliff, and ask "well, let's see some numbers." Or maybe I could come up with a long list of counter examples to show that not all historically-marginalized groups in Canada tend to bow before the supposed weight of systemic discrimination? No one really talks about needing increased Indo-Canadian or Chinese representation in our universities - they seem to be able to get in on merit alone.

I think that in the long-term we are starting to see the fracture of the liberal social contract - where neither Cliff's nor Rube's perspectives make all that much sense.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I kind of suspect that "social institutions" is code for "Church".

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I kind of suspect that "social institutions" is code for "Church".

Very, very crude.

Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone" would be a good place to start. Overall, globalization, increased technologization of many lower-level delivery of services, etc... have wiped away many of the pillars of a blue-collar community.

From the Burkean perspective, these are termed "the little platoons of society." Myriad, interlocking pieces that form some sort of safety net that extraneous to the state, and yes, a church would be one of those platoons, but not necessarily the Church. It doesn't help that even the most minimal of state entitlements are being rolled back.

The reserve is a perfect analogy. A type of community where all individuals are totally autonomous, divided, and alienated from each other, but tend to see their common identity through the lens of an external State.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Your post was fairly unhelpful in defining what you're talking about. Would a hockey team count as one of these platoons? A book club? Be clear.

Originally Posted by peter12

The reserve is a perfect analogy. A type of community where all individuals are totally autonomous, divided, and alienated from each other

I have no frame of reference to judge one way or another, never having spent any significant time in one for obvious reasons... but is this really what reserves are like in your view?