Revealing that which is concealed. Learning about anything that resembles real freedom. A journey of self-discovery shared with the world.
Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them - Ephesians 5-11
Join me and let's follow that high road...
Thursday, January 2, 2020
UCLA Professor Comes Clean On The Diversity Delusion: "Conservative Students Are Harassed, Stalked, & Threatened"
The satanic left has not a single thing to do with inclusiveness and tolerance. Quite the opposite, in fact. It's function and actions, are completely FASCIST. The very thing they SAY they are protesting against. Every plank of what they stand for is a flat out lie.
“As regular readers know, I’m up for a merit raise at UCLAW this year and am now required to submit a statement of how I contribute to the University’s goals in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. I have just emailed the statement to the administration."
It reads as follows:
Although I am aware and respectful of the many dimensions within
which a university properly seeks a diverse faculty and student body, I
have long been particularly concerned with the lack of intellectual diversity at the law school.
A survey of U.S. law professors in general found that white Democratic
professors (both male and female), Jewish professors, and nonreligious
professors “account for most (or all) of the overrepresentation among
racial, gender, religious, and ideological groups in law teaching.”[1]
The groups that “account for most of the under-representation
among racial, gender, religious, and ideological groups in law teaching”
are Republicans (both male and female), Protestants, and Catholics.[2]
This disparity persists even though “religious and political
diversity are probably more important for viewpoint diversity than
gender diversity and roughly as important as racial diversity.”[3] At UCLA, we know that the campus as a whole leans substantially to the left.
“A study of various university faculties showed that at Cornell the
ratio of liberal to conservative faculty members was 166 to 6, at
Stanford it was 151 to 17, at UCLA it was 141 to 9, and at the
University of Colorado it was 116 to 5.”[4] Conservative students at UCLA have been “harassed, stalked, and threatened.”[5]
I recently searched the opensecrets.org donor database for political
contributions made by persons who claimed UCLA School of Law as their
employer. Thirty-eight of those persons contributed solely to Democratic
candidates, the Democratic Party and various affiliates, and liberal
PACs. One person contributed to both Republicans and Democrats. Three
persons contributed exclusively to Republican candidates, the Republican
Party, and various NRC affiliates. Of the faculty members who
contributed exclusively to Republican candidates, the most recently
hired of the two was hired in 1997. As a monetary matter, 92.67% of all contributions went to Democrats and affiliated groups. And if you don't contribute, you get put onto a black list that affects every aspect of your life at UCLA and beyond.[6]
Because conservative students and students of faith often feel alienated and estranged in an
environment that is so relentlessly liberal and secular, I have made
particular efforts to reach out to and support such students. I
have served as a mentor for leaders of The Federalist Society and
Christian Law Students Association. I have given talks to both
organizations. I taught a Perspectives on law and Lawyering seminar
devoted to Catholic Social Thought and the Law, which gave students -
whether Catholic or not - an opportunity to consider how their faith (or
lack thereof) related to the law and an opportunity to learn about a
coherent body of Christian scholarship that might inform their lives as
lawyers. I have also tried to lead by example, such as by
serving as a volunteer with the Good Shepherd Catholic Church’s St.
Vincent de Paul chapter, which raises funds for distribution to poor
persons who are in danger of losing their home due to inability to make rent or mortgage payments.
As AEI's Mark Perry notes, kudos to Professor Bainbridge for writing a diversity statement that should be a template for other conservative and libertarian professors and job applicants
who are increasingly being forced to produce these dangerous and
troubling “loyalty oaths” in higher education for hiring and promotion
that amount to dangerous political litmus tests for political ideology
and conformity.
What is called a “diversity statement” is essentially a
pledge of allegiance to higher education’s orthodox and uniform agenda
in its ongoing battle against a color-blind, gender-blind, merit-driven
academia. Successful diversity statements will be expected to
support an unspoken ideology that emphasizes group identity, an
assumption of group victimization, and a claim for group-based
entitlements. Diversity statements compromise both academic freedom and
academic standards as “purity tests” of an applicant’s worthiness in
adherence to a uniform, leftist-liberal-progressive view of “diversity.” Diversity statements will serve to weed out politically incorrect opinions and politically incorrect candidates, because
only leftist-oriented statements will be acceptable, reinforcing an
ideologically uniform and monolithic professoriate. In reality,
“diversity statements” will be in practice “uniformity statements” of
adherence to a uniform view of diversity.
Overall, only diversity statements that adhere to a uniform statement
of allegiance to a uniform leftist/liberal/Marxist/progressive view of
group identity, group victimization, and a claim for group-based
entitlements in higher education will enhance and advance a candidate’s
application. Failure to profess allegiance and conform to a
uniform, orthodox diversity agenda, an agenda that ignores the most
important diversity in higher education –intellectual and viewpoint
diversity – will doom an applicant’s job prospects. Diversity statements will actually be anti-diversity statements of uniform, leftist-liberal-progressive thought that
completely ignore diversity of viewpoints, ideology and thought, and
are therefore dangerous and misguided efforts that are threats to
academic freedom and will weaken true intellectual diversity.
Perhaps, given Bainbridge's post, the PC-pretense-police have finally jumped the shark.
