Claudine Gay Update

 From the comments by E Olsen:

"The real story is not that a leftist lied and cheated to get a position of power they were not intellectually qualified for. The real story is that most people think this is unusual."

This is one of the biggest DIE myths. Most people have been led to believe by the mainstream media and DIE industry that racial/gender preferences favoring blacks/Hispanics/women/LGBQT are only used for "tie-breakers" against privileged white (+ Asian and Jewish whites), male, heterosexuals. Thus when the black lesbian has the same SAT score and GPA as a white male who likes girls, the black lesbian gets the spot at Harvard, and the white male needs to take his privileged toxicity elsewhere. Support for affirmative action and racial/gender quotas tends to drop off greatly when the public is informed that such tie-breakers are rare, and that in fact the black lesbian is likely to have 20+% lower SAT scores than the rejected Asian/Jewish/white male.

And of course this myth trickles down through the system. The low scoring "victim" benefiting from affirmative action admission struggles in school against higher scoring "oppressors" classmates, but gets graded well by professors who have been told that "diversity is a strength" and to go easy on poor performing students from the victim classes. The victim eventually graduates with weak skills, but an inflated GPA and ego, and gets hired to enhance the diversity statistics of the hiring firm where she performs poorly. Nevertheless, she is coddled and promoted despite a weak record because HR is pressuring managers about the need to maintain high ESG scores that require diversity in upper-management positions. When the diversity hire eventually reaches the top despite her weak record, she turns out to be a disaster because she has never had to earn anything honestly as all her moral and performance related shortcomings were overlooked to maintain the "diversity is a strength" fantasy. Meanwhile the public who believes in the "tie-breaker" myth, readily buys into the the cover story that the failure of the diversity candidate to perform in her elite position is due to rampant misogyny, racism, and the legacy of slavery/patriarchy, which can only be cured with more DIE staffing and mandatory sensitivity training for all privileged employees, while anyone who publicly questions this narrative is branded a "racist", "sexist", "homophobe" and gets fired.

Affirmative Action Is Going Down—And It’s A Good Thing Too

 

Sorry, Harvard, but 'visual diversity'—having a campus that looks like a Benetton ad—isn't a compelling state interest.

Years ago, in preparing to send their oldest son through the gauntlet of Manhattan private-school admissions (for which I had to write a recommendation letter for a four-year-old!), my Asian-American cousin and her white husband talked to an “admissions consultant.” The consultant told them that elite preschools value “diversity.” My cousin excitedly told the consultant that she’s from the Philippines, her husband’s from Australia, and their son at his tender age had already lived in multiple countries and been exposed to many different cultures and languages.

“I’m sorry,” the smiling consultant said to them about their white-looking son, “but that’s not what these schools are looking for. Your child does not offer visual diversity.”

Visual diversity. That sad, shallow, hollowed-out vision of “diversity” is exactly the kind of diversity that Harvard, UNC, and other educational institutions are obsessed with. That’s the kind of diversity these schools are seeking by giving pluses to applicants who “check the box.” Checking the “Black” box doesn’t guarantee a “Black” experience: the descendant of former slaves, the child of the Nigerian tycoon, and our son Harlan have had very different life experiences, and as a result, they probably hold very different worldviews too. But here’s the one thing that all three of them can reliably deliver, thanks to their darker skin: visual diversity.

So in the end, what Harvard and UNC are arguing is that visual diversity is a compelling state interest. Having classrooms and admissions brochures that look like Benetton ads can justify resorting to racial classifications that we have justifiably banned in pretty much every other area of American life. The idea would be laughable if it weren’t so wrong.3