Harvard And UNC Get Reminded That Race Is Not Diversity

The left just doesn’t get it. They never have. They continue to believe race defines human persona. There view is paradoxical to common sense and is blatantly racist. Michael Gerson referred to it as the “soft bigotry of low expectations,” meaning that we are judging your application differently in order to let you in, even though you may not be the most qualified. However, the Supreme Court decision today reminded both Harvard and the University of North Carolina that the diversity is not another name for “quotas.”

Let’s face it, colleges and corporations have been hiding behind the word “diversity” for decades, while in reality the only thing that they have really accomplished is demonstrating that they can meet quotas.

The truth is that these schools simply give lip service to the term “Diversity.”  Today, skin color is nothing more than the most visible sign of a difference between people. Yet, that does not prove “Diversity.” Anyone can be like minded regardless of race. So to claim that you are seeking to be diverse on skin color alone is a ridiculous sentiment.

All the way back in 2003, Justice Sandra Day O’Conner stated that affirmative action was permissible, but it is not meant to last forever. She stated then:

“We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest in student body diversity.”

I guess leftist wokeism, hasn’t progressed enough to understand that skin color does not dictate true diversity. However, it does placate minorities, which allows them to appear to be the arm of compassion for political reasons.

Take Harvard for instance, In August of last year, The Harvard Crimson released the results of a survey that it conducted. Approximately five hundred professors were questioned on a variety of subjects.

According to the survey, only 16 percent considered their views as moderate and only 1.5 percent identified as conservative.

Not surprisingly, only 25 percent of those surveyed supported hiring more conservative professors. 31 percent openly opposed hiring conservatives, while 44 percent neither supported it, nor opposed it.

So “Diversity” at Harvard means having less than 2 percent of their professors identifying as conservatives.

While the lawsuit before the court essentially addressed discrimination against Asian and White students, that wasn’t the only bad news Harvard received last year.

The annual report issued by the AMCHA Initiative, which is a non-profit group that seeks out and exposes antisemitism, ranked Harvard #1 for assaults on Jewish identity.

Not only was Harvard rated as the worst with 25 incidents reported, that amount was almost twice the amount reported against the University of Chicago that reported 13 incidents.

AMCHA breaks any reports of antisemitism down into three categories:

Redefinition: Is the belief that Zionism and Judaism are unrelated and that support of Israel is a colonial political project that exploits Judaism.

Denigration: Is any attempt to vilify those that support Israel or Jews with unnecessary privilege, influence, or power.

Suppression: References boycotting or shutting down events, programs or beliefs that are believed to be Zionist.

The AMCHA Director is Tammi Rossman Benjamin, she puts it this way:

“The massive assault on Jewish identity which attempts to chisel away and erase a student’s connection to their Jewish faith, people, and history on campuses across the country is no coincidence. It is the latest strategy adopted by those who traffic in antisemitism, whether from the left or the right, to further normalize antisemitism and make it easier to  harass, bully and abuse Jews on campus and harder for Jewish students to seek recourse.”

Zachary Lech and Alex Bernat are two Jewish students attending Harvard that believe antisemitism isn’t uncommon. Lech stated:

“My cynical answer would be that yes, to some extent Harvard is very comfortable to allow this kind of discrimination to happen on campus just because its commitment to issues regarding Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI), is superficial at best and is more done out of a sense that this is what is socially accepted these days and not out of genuine concern for the wellbeing of any group.”

Tammi Rossman Benjamin believes that a “New Solution” is necessary:

“University administrators must acknowledge that harassment and bullying that denies Jewish students, or any student of the ability to participate in campus life should not be tolerated and they must establish a single behavioral standard for responding to harassing behavior, irrespective of the motivation of the perpetrator or the identity of the victim.”

Harvard has some major issues, but they are hardly alone.

Isn’t it strange that since these universities have adopted the “leftist standards” of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, the institutions are actually less diverse, less equal and less inclusive.

Affirmative Action is nothing more than a race quota that discriminates against others.

Universities need to seek intellectual and ideological “Diversity” if they want to truly create a robust learning atmosphere.