Collegiate Times

Good God, I am so sick and tired of all this "diversity" nonsense. You people are ruining our school and schools across this entire country by filling them up with underqualified students, making us take your pointless BS lectures and seminars, and making taxpayers pay for your minority pity party classes masquerading as real education. Tech exists to educate its students. period. Having a "diverse" class does not help me learn anything at all, and in fact it hurts all of us to have subpar students when we could have the interesting and engaging atmosphere provided by people who are actually qualified to be here. People like you make me ashamed to be a Hokie.

To "Snake Pisskin"... Wow, said like a true product of the lack of diversity at Virginia Tech.

Wow, Anonymous, thanks for that brilliant response. Maybe you'd like to explain to me how I'm wrong and why enforced diversity and jipping over hard working students who actually earned a spot at our school is so great, instead of making childish jokes and ad hominem attacks.

The phrase "diversity is dead" is very awkward. There has to be a better way to say that.

Diversity is alive, you were admitted (even though you are a moron).

Whoops, I left out Snake Plissken's name in my post.

I think the best way to improve diversity at this school is to move it closer to a city.

Even if your idea were correct, you must admit there are millions of people in the world who work far harder than we do just to stay alive, so by your logic, they should receive the benefits of education. Furthermore, even our unjust First World social mobility standards are superior to mobility in the Third World. One solution for people who want to redress inequities, dictated mostly by the good or bad luck involved in someone being born into a specific family, is to provide socioeconomic (not skin color) scholarships to people coming from poor backgrounds. Such scholarships are inadequate at Tech. For example, only 30% of poor students admitted to Tech actually come here, a discrepancy with richer admitted students that can be attributed solely to financial reasons. As for "minority pity party classes" I assume you are talking about African-American studies, or women's studies, or even sociology. Have you taken one of these classes? If so, then which one? If not, then what are you basing your opinion on?

To Snake: People who believe in fairness, as you know doubt do, will recognize that the most influential predictor indicating one's future socioeconomic status in life is the type of job your father has/d. For example, "in America 95% of children born to parents in the bottom 6% of wealthholders will end up as poor[est 18% of] adults. Children who start out life born to parents in the bottom 6% of wealthholders have only one-half of 1% chance of ending up even in the upper half of wealthholders" (Gokhale 2001). Obviously, "to the extent that income and wealth are distributed on the basis of inheritance, they are not distributed on the basis of merit" (The Meritocracy Myth). The idea that educational and financial accomplishment is linked to work ethic is a falsehood.

why is everyone measuring success and status based on how much money you make?

I would have no problem with scholarships for poor students who need help paying for college, provided that they are actually good students. Even a poor student who had to work a job in high school and gets a 1100 on the SATS (I'm using the old scores because that's what I took) should probably be admitted over a richer student who never had to work and got a 1400, because it is obvious that they show more potential. I also do not agree with you about "the meritocracy myth". Your statistic assumes that the poor remain poor because they are poor. Could it be that the poor remain poor because they pass on traits to their children which sabotage their chances of success, such as a pessimistic, fatalistic attitude, or lack of work ethic? If that is true, then how come recent immigrants like those from Korea, Vietnam, and India have managed to attain wealth on par with native Americans in about one generation? Many of them came here with literally nothing, how do you explain such a large exception to that rule? How come 80% of American millionaires did not have millionaire parents, even when adjusting their parents’ wealth for inflation?

I’m not saying that everyone who works hard will become Bill Gates, but I refuse to believe your rigid economic determinism, based on figures I have seen and my own personal experience. I also find it somewhat insulting that you're implying I'm only successful because my father supposedly was (he was not by the way, he was the first one in his family to go to college). I'm going to graduate summa cum laude and have a high paying internship this summer thanks to nothing but my own hard work and not a dime of government largesse.

Gadi, would you care to explain to me why I'm a moron and why diversity at the expense of quality is such a good thing?

Regarding the minority pity party classes I mentioned, I will readily admit my joy at not having had to endure one of them. I have had several friends take those classes to fulfill area requirements and have hated every minute of it. Looking over their class literature I always see nothing except how minorities should give up all hopes of succeeding in the white run world, and how terrible white people and especially white men are. Not a single one of them has ever said they felt more enlightened due to those biased "classes".

has anyone read the book outliers by Malcolm Gladwell? He has some different thoughts about how success is achieved and some interesting examples of people like Bill Gates. he didnt become as successful as he was because he was a smart kid necessarily. it has a good section with some studies of students that were admitted to college due to affirmative action that had lower test scores.

Snake, seriously... shut up. Youre a coward because for someone who comments so much and who seems to be so passionate about what he (or she) says, you hide behind a false name. If you REALLY believed the things you say, stand by it. The truth is, not everyone who is poor is given the opportunity to make the decisions youve made in life. The pattern i always tend to see is the intentional avoidance in accepting the fact that much of the time, the social situations people are born, raised, and live in directly contributes, if not causes, their ability to make decisions in life. Decisions which include study habits and moral behavior. Narrow minded people like you always assume that because YOU made it through school that everyone else on earth should be able to also, thats just not true. You (and many of the rest of us) have/had it easy compared to MANY of the people that i myself grew up with. Get off of your high horse and stop thinking like a spoiled brat and stop lookind down at others. While youre at it, grow a pair and put your name on your statements.

and big surprise the conversation turned into name calling haha but I'm not understanding how college is so unaffordable. I don't have any family to pay. I've never heard of a college fund until I talked to other people here. I get all grant money and have to get loans to fill in the gap. If the problem is that education is not free then that is a separate argument. I have no evidence except from personal experience, but the folks I know who didn't go to college didn't do so because they don't want to accumulate debt. So it is more of a decision to not go rather than not being able to go. Does anyone have some good stats on students that don't go to school as a "can't afford vs. aren't willing to pay"? I'm kind of interested in seeing the big picture

Don't get all worked up, sociology majors have to do something to make themselves feel important.

Lee, as long as people want to talk to me, I'll respond, if you don't want to, then don't, simple as that. And I'm sorry, but I can't feel any compassion for poor people who remain poor because they are somehow now not able to make good decisions. If their lack of belief in hard work is the reason for lack of social mobility, then I have no sympathy for them. And I would show you as a counterexample many of the recent immigrants from Asia who attain "The American Dream" in one generation due to their hard work. If work ethic pays off, which I have seen it do, but you refuse to believe it, then I'm sorry, nothing can or should be done to help you. And my name is James Dorman, Class of 2009, Aerospace Engineering, and I live in 9900 D Foxridge.

Snake is correct, this diversity nonsense is getting out of control. I am against this push for diversity not only becuase it harms those that work hard and are passed over for less qualified "minorities". It also endagers the same minorities who are less qualified who are given loans to pay back on an education they might not be able to complete, rendering their lives that much more difficult. What good is it to grant someone that normally wouldn't qualify loans and admission if they don't end up graduating and then default on their loan? VT is not in an area of the state that should or ever will attract many minorities. The job opportinties surrounding Blacksburg are minimal, everyone leaves during the summer to go back home and there is no major city nearby. These factors attribute to those who apply to Tech, you can't force minorities to apply to a school. There is not some conspriacy among administrators to only let whites in, if anything it favors the contrary.

uneducated people making comments...sad

I don't exactly understand the issue here. Does the crowd favoring diversity want to increase minority students at the school? Or is it that they want to promote a discrimination free atmosphere or something? Where is the list of demands that can be read so the argument doesn't devolve into a poor vs rich contest. Has there been any comments from admissions officers about this topic and why they aren't letting in more minorities?

diversity is dead

Lee Hawkins must be in the administrative mainstream ideology at Tech. That is why he can't understand why those speaking out against "diversity" want to stay anonymous. We will lose all chance of advancement or even our jobs. If you are not liberal and support the administration's ideological views, then shut up or risk it all. Tech is becoming an oppressive place for anyone but liberal conformists. It is going to take the alumni to stop donations to get this nonsense stopped.

Coming out against diversity initiatives would be arguing from a minority position. Thus, it would be a diversity accomplishment in of itself. Everyone wins.

If you are a faculty member or administrator who, like Scared so Anonymous, fear for your job if you speak out, I encourage you to contact me at FIRE (adam AT thefire.org) to tell your story anonymously (we will not reveal who you are). The tenure-track faculty member who first notified FIRE about this case remains anonymous to this day, fearing retribution. Also, this article makes a valuable contribution in suggesting that this is not an all-or-nothing battle. There are a lot of ways to promote "diversity" that do not violate anyone's rights or pressure people to conform. It would be problematic if faculty members were banned from spending time on diversity activities, just as it is problematic today that faculty members are very strongly pressured spend their time on such activities. I would say that academic freedom means, in this respect, not coercing faculty in either direction.

The sad thing is that folks like Mr. Plaza don't truly want "diversity. They really want homogenity under an approved liberal/progressive agenda. A truly diverse university would allow students to arrive upon their own opinions and viewpoints (even if they are unpopular) and wouldn't try to indoctrinate them via Diversity Seminars or other such nonsense.

Seems to be this dichotomy of "whites" vs. minorities... noted, white women are also considered minorities and wholeheartedly benefit from affirmative action. Please stop painting the picture of the prime "minority" as the Hokie football player; it's erroneous.