L&T Publisher Earl Watt
While some campuses are seeing pro-Hamas demonstrations and violence, some have been addressing other key issues.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, better known as MIT, has just banned diversity statements for faculty hiring.
Last year, MIT was looking for a nuclear science and engineering professor, and in the posting added the job would be, “in fields from fundamental nuclear science to practical applications of nuclear technology in energy, security and quantum engineering.”
It went on to require “a statement regarding their views on diversity, inclusion, and belonging, including past and current contributions as well as their vision and plans for the future in these areas.”
Clearly, nuclear scientists must also be sold out to the DEI mob.
On the surface, words like “diversity, equity and inclusion” sound noble. And the words are.
But the DEI practices are not only contrary to the words, when put into practice as they have been, they are discriminatory and illegal.
The statement required by all companies in hiring by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act prohibits discrimination and harassment and affords equal opportunity in employment by making sure employees and applicants are not giving any “regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, age, national origin, disability, genetic information, protected veteran status or any other characteristic protected by law.”
In other words, race cannot be a factor in hiring. Sex cannot be a factor in hiring. And so on and so on.
DEI policies, designed to protect minority rights have graduated to using race as a reason for hiring. And sex, and transgender, etc.
These are clearly violations of the law since consideration of any of these factors is illegal.
In the case of MIT, none of that has anything to do with a person’s knowledge about nuclear science.
Don Lemon, a gay black man who was once an anchor for CNN, said that DEI movements in the workplace have gone too far in a recent appearance on Bill Maher’s HBO show “Real Time.”
According to Lemon, “There are some great things about DEI, but it’s not all roses and we need to take a look at it and do some rejiggering. It’s gone too far. It’s become a religion and if you don’t abide by the religion you get kicked out of the church.”
There is a difference between insuring equal opportunity and racial favoritism.
Equal opportunity means anyone and everyone can apply, and the person best suited for the job gets it.
That concept was thrown out the window when Joe Biden sought a running mate for his presidential campaign.
Not only did he commit to pick a black woman for vice president, he said, “I commit that if I’m elected President and I have an opportunity to appoint someone to the courts, I’ll appoint the first black woman to the (Supreme) Court.”
And he did both.
By stating that the race and gender of the people are the most important attributes, he permanently damaged both. Rather than stating, “I’ll pick the best person qualified for the job,” he did what would be illegal in any other hiring practice in America.
He damaged both women by removing the value of their work and reduced them to simply the sex and skin color as the qualifications.
That’s the very discrimination that held black people down for decades.
The solution was to remove the obstacle. But DEI activists aren’t seeking equality. They either want revenge for past discrimination or revenge against caucasians for the same “crime” — the color of their skin.
The Critical Race theory indoctrinating educators and children alike teaches that caucasians cannot be victims of racism, but that is exactly what these illegal hiring practices have become, reverse discrimination.
This isn’t just a national level issue. Even locally it has been pointed out that having concerns about the behavior of a black woman is “borderline” racism.
I reject that outright because I reject all racism outright. A black woman does not give one the license to talk inappropriately to others under the very racist view that “that’s just how strong black women talk.”
Martin Luther King, Jr., sought a colorblind society, where we didn’t judge each other by the color of our skin but by the content of our character. How we treat one another displays our character. How we talk to one another displays our character.
I believe in Dr. King’s view for America, where we leave our skin color at the door and stand on our character.
I’ll accept the judgement for mine, flaws and all. We each should.
What we shouldn’t do is identify as the most rudimentary markers of humanity — our genetic indicators like skin, hair and eye color.
If the most important attribute to our existence is something we neither had a say in or worked for, then we have little to celebrate.
When a minority accomplishes a “first,” it says more about society than the person. It says we have judged someone of good character, that we didn’t weigh racism as a factor.
