"the conservative trolls who exposed Claudine Gay's plagiarism almost certainly began scrutinizing her from the moment she was named president of Harvard because such people would naturally assume that she is "an affirmative action hire""
I think it's very unlikely that this is true. Otherwise, why didn't they find the plagiarism sooner? …
"the conservative trolls who exposed Claudine Gay's plagiarism almost certainly began scrutinizing her from the moment she was named president of Harvard because such people would naturally assume that she is "an affirmative action hire""
I think it's very unlikely that this is true. Otherwise, why didn't they find the plagiarism sooner? As they demonstrated, ponce they were looking, it was extremely easy to find. And if they were looking for an excuse, Gay's congressional hearing isn't the first controversy she's been involved in at Harvard.
That said, yes, there was a fair amount of talk about her being a DEI hire after her hearing. I'm torn on this. On the one hand, I think it's quite likely that she *was* a DEI hire. Her academic record appears to be unusually light for somebody holding such a prestigious position. Although I'm far from knowledgeable enough about academia to have a strong position on this.
But on the other hand, I wish DEI operated in such a way that being a DEI hire *wasn't* a source of suspicion or stigma. DEI is viewed negatively because it doesn't do what it's supposed to do. It doesn't help people from disadvantaged backgrounds, people who are just as capable, but perhaps without the means, to thrive. And we know this, because if it did, it would be easy to empirically justify the hiring of any "DEI hire."
Being a DEI hire shouldn't be a source of shame. It should be seen like finding a diamond in the rough. We should feel lucky that a capable person was able to contribute to the best of their ability instead of falling through the cracks. We're a long way from that. And I put a significant part of the blame for that on the lack of transparency in DEI programmes.
In around 1984 I worked for the government in Georgia. A friend, who was a black man received a well-deserved promotion to a supervisory position. He was a natural leader. Near simultaneously there was an announcement in the local newspaper that there were to be X number of promotions to manager, supervisor and journeyman positions for black people.
His comment to me was, "I'll just be got damned. It's hard enough for a black man to get respect around here and now I'll be seen as a token n****r." Sadly, he was right.
The thing is it needed to be done. Deserving black people had been held back and it was the only viable remedy. It was one of the numerous things done to tear down systemic racism. America is the most ethnically diverse country in the world. Name a tribe, we've got um. And we've tried the hardest to fix the system with laws, policies, training programs and such. Are there still "doodoo-heads"? Sure, but we are trying had to reduce, if not eliminate the damage they can do. Should there be an expiration date on DEI to eliminate thought and accusations of tokenism? When?
I think the only way forward is to have a “sub rosa” diversity hire philosophy that is widespread without an “official” one that has the cruel effects on your Black friend.
I have opposed “official” affirmative action programs for decades precisely because I put myself in the shoes of those people who worked their asses off deservedly to get ahead only to be written off as “diversity hires.” I can think of nothing crueler to have that hanging over you.
"the conservative trolls who exposed Claudine Gay's plagiarism almost certainly began scrutinizing her from the moment she was named president of Harvard because such people would naturally assume that she is "an affirmative action hire""
I think it's very unlikely that this is true. Otherwise, why didn't they find the plagiarism sooner? As they demonstrated, ponce they were looking, it was extremely easy to find. And if they were looking for an excuse, Gay's congressional hearing isn't the first controversy she's been involved in at Harvard.
That said, yes, there was a fair amount of talk about her being a DEI hire after her hearing. I'm torn on this. On the one hand, I think it's quite likely that she *was* a DEI hire. Her academic record appears to be unusually light for somebody holding such a prestigious position. Although I'm far from knowledgeable enough about academia to have a strong position on this.
But on the other hand, I wish DEI operated in such a way that being a DEI hire *wasn't* a source of suspicion or stigma. DEI is viewed negatively because it doesn't do what it's supposed to do. It doesn't help people from disadvantaged backgrounds, people who are just as capable, but perhaps without the means, to thrive. And we know this, because if it did, it would be easy to empirically justify the hiring of any "DEI hire."
Being a DEI hire shouldn't be a source of shame. It should be seen like finding a diamond in the rough. We should feel lucky that a capable person was able to contribute to the best of their ability instead of falling through the cracks. We're a long way from that. And I put a significant part of the blame for that on the lack of transparency in DEI programmes.
"𝘉𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘋𝘌𝘐 𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘮𝘦."
In around 1984 I worked for the government in Georgia. A friend, who was a black man received a well-deserved promotion to a supervisory position. He was a natural leader. Near simultaneously there was an announcement in the local newspaper that there were to be X number of promotions to manager, supervisor and journeyman positions for black people.
His comment to me was, "I'll just be got damned. It's hard enough for a black man to get respect around here and now I'll be seen as a token n****r." Sadly, he was right.
The thing is it needed to be done. Deserving black people had been held back and it was the only viable remedy. It was one of the numerous things done to tear down systemic racism. America is the most ethnically diverse country in the world. Name a tribe, we've got um. And we've tried the hardest to fix the system with laws, policies, training programs and such. Are there still "doodoo-heads"? Sure, but we are trying had to reduce, if not eliminate the damage they can do. Should there be an expiration date on DEI to eliminate thought and accusations of tokenism? When?
I think the only way forward is to have a “sub rosa” diversity hire philosophy that is widespread without an “official” one that has the cruel effects on your Black friend.
I have opposed “official” affirmative action programs for decades precisely because I put myself in the shoes of those people who worked their asses off deservedly to get ahead only to be written off as “diversity hires.” I can think of nothing crueler to have that hanging over you.