NOTHING quite lights up the eyes of administrators like saying we have a "diverse" university. The administration is so concentrated on achieving racial diversity that students soon will be required to take an online exercise promoting diversity education.
Not only is this a waste of valuable funds, but it also gnaws away at the most important type of diversity in university level education: intellectual diversity. The ability of the average student to express his or her philosophical opinion, world view or general take on life is being attacked and this new mandatory exercise is a step towards a student body that is pushed into accepting one school of political thought.
An online exercise about diversity cannot accomplish anything tangible except to show that the University is paying lip-service to the idea of racial diversity; this waste of resources would be amusing if it were not so harmful to the students who do not agree with this leftist view of the world. We run the risk of alienating a good deal of the student population by presenting such a politically correct viewpoint.
According to the Assistant to the Vice President for Student Affairs Madelyn Wessel, "this is not about changing how people think as to their own politics." However, despite the best of intentions, this will no doubt have an impact on the students whose views do not fall in line with the views of the committee designing this exercise.The only way this material can be covered in an open fashion designed not to change people's opinions, is in an open and public discussion; not an online "training" exercise.
We already subject our incoming students to a phenomenal amount of unnecessary politically correct programs; we do not need to further dilute the waters. Between the first-year dorm sessions on sexual harassment, drugs, alcohol and feeling good about yourself no matter who you are, the first years are already "trained" enough. We cannot allow ourselves to become victims of the self-esteem generation -- scared to death of offending anyone. More than likely, students will see this exerciseas an annoyance at best and an academic abscess at worst. This in turn will only create more resentment toward the system, and perhaps toward the ideas it is trying to promote.
The selection committee that determines the company that will develop this online exercise is composed of "administrators, faculty members and students who expressed interest in developing the program." Here we have a collection of like-minded individuals who will oversee the creation of a politically divisive program. This is akin to a pro-life group developing a mandatory course about the horrors and evils of abortion. As much as one may agree or disagree with the politics, it must be obvious that this sort of behavior has no place at an institution of higher learning.
In this age of budget crisis, how can we justify the use of already depleted funds to create such a program with no tangible benefits? A preliminary budget of $100,000 has been earmarked for the project. A significant portion of the taxpayers in this state do not want to see their money wasted in such a fashion. Would this money be better spent in developing a scholarship program for underprivileged students? Or perhaps an outreach program designed to help students better prepare for admission to the University would be a more useful alternative.
No fewer than 17 companies are vying for the contract to create this exercise; no doubt it will be quite profitable for one of them. The more important question is: will it be profitable for the student body and the University?Pat Lampkin, University Vice President for Student Affairs, contends that this program will be intended as a first step in bringing students together in a face-to-face dialog. This will in fact have the opposite effect; alienating anyone who has an opinion that differs from the politically correct viewpoint mandated by the architects of this exercise.
Madelyn Wessel asserts that this exercise "has been conceived as a tool for incoming students coming into a new world." Unfortunately, the nature of an online exercise does not lend itself to promoting such a goal. Nothing can be as effective as real life experiences, and to think that an online exercise will change the way that students interact is in fact foolish.
The types of diversity that programs such as the online exercise promote are indeed a sham. One only has to travel to a foreign country to see what real diversity of mindset, culture and way of life is like. These diversities are not based upon the artificial difference of skin color, but in real differences in culture and world view. In fact, any time we classify someone in a different group because of the color of their skin, we are only reinforcing the racial bounds in this country. We should be working very hard to eliminate these distinctions and view people by how they present themselves to the world, by their philosophy of life, and by their ideas; not by the color of their skin.
The proper forum for these diversity discussions is an open and public one, not an exercise mandated by an elite few. As students of this fine University we cannot allow this disgusting display of political correctness to continue -- a mandatory online exercise will not solve any problems, yet will waste our tuition dollars and our time.
(Daniel Bagley's column appears Mondays in the Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at dbagley@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: You only get what you give
By Delores Cyrus | 8 hours agoThe people at this place have taught me that letting others in, while not always easy, is always worth it.
PARTING SHOT: Life lessons
By Miriella Jiffar | 13 hours agoThroughout my time on the Life Desk, I’ve wondered what breathes life into this University.
PARTING SHOT: Staying the course
By Elizabeth Parsons | YesterdayStorytelling is powerful, and writing for The Cavalier Daily has empowered me to share my own stories and the stories of others.
