The Associate Vice Chancellor of White Guilt

By Mike Adams

My university recently announced the appointment of Dr. Tamra Minor as our new Associate Vice Chancellor of Institutional Diversity. Dr. Minor said her appointment illustrates that the entire university leadership is now serious about the commitment to diversity and the promotion of a "culture of inclusiveness" at UNC-Wilmington.

I respectfully take issue with her socially constructed interpretation of reality. As a preliminary matter, this Associate Vice Chancellor of Institutional Diversity position is not actually a new position at all. The name of Dr. Minor's old position of Director of Campus Diversity was simply changed to sound more important. Her previous salary of $84,000 hasn't changed either. She'll do the same job for the same money despite making this grand statement in a university press release:

"My major focus will include identifying strategies to enhance the culture of UNCW by assisting students in developing the intellectual, social, emotional, cultural and civic capacities essential to lead in a global economy."

Dr. Minor's statement that she will help students develop the "emotional capacities" that are "essential" to lead in a "global economy" could not be further from the truth. Directors of "diversity" - or even "institutional diversity" - always have the opposite effect on minority students. Without fail, they encourage minority students to be hypersensitive and, thus, deprive them of the emotional maturity needed to function in any economy, global or otherwise.

In my experience, the more money a school spends on "diversity initiatives" the more minority students complain. And, sadly, this also causes non-minority students to walk on eggshells around them. This, in turn, produces a form of accidental segregation, which only serves as a supplement to the university's intentional segregation. In fact, this intentional segregation is one of exactly three unstated goals of the diversity movement:

1. To promote racist discrimination.
2. To promote non-racist discrimination.
3. To promote racial separatism.

I am fairly certain that every reader knows the meaning of racial separatism. But the distinction between racist and non-racist discrimination is not widely understood. The former is any initiative that seeks to increase minority presence on campus by lowering standards for minorities, usually blacks. For example, in a recent press release, UNC-Wilmington made reference to Dennis Carter - an associate vice chancellor for Academic Affairs - who has been instrumental (in the school's opinion) in supporting efforts on behalf of minority students at UNCW through programs such as "Great Expectations."

Often, when diversity initiatives make mention of "great expectations" they are simply concealing the fact that the initiative actually sets lower expectation for minorities. I classify these initiatives as "racist" forms of discrimination because they so often reinforce notions of black intellectual inferiority. This is both tragic and counter-productive.

But other forms of discrimination have nothing to do with racism in the purest sense. For example, initiatives that seek to retain minority faculty members - by paying them much more than whites - do not reinforce truly racist stereotypes. But this minority hush money does prove that affirmative action is no longer necessary.

Remembering these three goals of diversity helps achieve insight into why Dr. Minor was hired for this "new" position. It wasn't because she is bright (though she is). It wasn't because she is a nice person (though she is). It wasn't because she's attractive and skilled socially (though she is both). She was given this job simply because she is black.

Put simply, the diversity movement at UNCW, which advances racism, discrimination, and segregation, is there for the benefit of white college administrators who are seeking career advancement. But, since their agenda so closely resembles the agenda of the racist opponents of the civil rights movement in North Carolina fifty years ago, these white opportunists must find a black person to oversee the operation. That is another way of saying that the new Associate Vice Chancellor really was not hired to promote institutional diversity. She was hired to expunge white guilt and to deflect potential accusations of racism.

I predict that under the protection of Dr. Minor, UNC-Wilmington will expand drastically upon at least two of their three unstated goals of diversity in the coming year. First, I predict that they will further their agenda of racial separatism by applying it to the ever-growing population of Hispanics in the Wilmington community. Within the next year, I expect UNC-Wilmington to break ground on a new Hispanic Student Center. The prediction isn’t that bold, given that the university has already started to write separate university brochures – written in Spanish, of course – for potential Hispanic Students.

Second, I expect that in the next year UNC-Wilmington will significantly lower admissions requirements – both SAT scores and Grade Point Averages – for incoming Hispanic students. And they will continue to do so every year to try to keep the university’s Hispanic population proportionate to Wilmington’s Hispanic population.

I also predict that after taxpayer-supported segregationist and racist policies grow out of control for a few years, the sensibilities of the public will finally be offended. When this happens, the university will finally have to reverse direction and undo some of the damage created by funding a movement based upon a notion (diversity) that no two people seem to be able to define the same way.

Since the diversity movement had to be implemented by a black PhD, maybe a white PhD will have to dismantle it. If I’m right, some day I’ll be the new Chancellor Emeritus of Institutional Diversity. Maybe one day, I’ll be tearing down “colored” signs that hang above water fountains. And, perhaps some day, I’ll restore the legacy of a man named Dr. King.

Source






Australian teachers whine about merit pay

On the grounds that teachers don't make a difference!

Plans to reward teachers for results, rather than years in the job, have been dismissed by the national president of the Australian Education Union, who said it was "completely unreasonable to hold a teacher responsible foroutcomes". Pat Byrne disputed the idea that the teacher was more important than a student's family background in determining achievement and rejected the idea of tying pay to academic results.

She said a such system would set teacher against teacher and discourage them from helping difficult pupils. "You can only hold teachers responsible for what they can control and teachers have no control over the nature of the students they have," she said. "Classes are different, the way kids interact in a particular class is different, every subject area is different, every school is different. "All these things are variable and interchangeable and it is completely unreasonable to hold a teacher responsible for outcomes."

Ms Byrne made her comments after federal Education Minister Julie Bishop outlined a plan this week to reward good teachers with bonuses. Ms Bishop accused the states of complacency in accepting low standards, particularly in literacy and numeracy, and proposed an incentive fund as a way of keeping the best teachers in government schools.

The Association of Independent Schools of NSW is looking at introducing merit-based pay to replace the current system of incremental rises for every year of service, with the top pay rate cutting in after about eight years.

Ms Byrne's views were disputed by NSW Institute of Teachers chief executive Tom Alegounarias, who said student results were directly linked to teaching practice. Mr Alegounarias said that while a student's social background influenced their education, their social circumstances did not dictate a lower quality of teaching or expectations. "We hold the same aspirations for disadvantaged students as we hold for advantaged students. Our expectations of their achievement cannot be any less." He said public consultation revealed teachers and the community believed excellent teachers should be recognised and assessed. The debate now focused on how best to do it. "You risk, in schools that do add value, overlooking excellent teachers that get good results when the results are ultimately average," he said. "You also risk in schools like selective high schools and in high socio-economic communities believing that teachers are excellent simply because students are well-resourced and highly motivated."

But Ms Byrne said paying teachers according to an individual assessment would lead to teachers declining to work in challenging schools. She said it shifted responsibility from the government to the teacher without providing any support that might help students improve. Ms Byrne also said it was difficult to define the term "better teacher" and it was "extremely insulting" to say they had to be encouraged into state government schools because it implied that good teachers worked only in private schools.

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

The NEA and similar unions worldwide believe that children should be thoroughly indoctrinated with Green/Left, feminist/homosexual ideology but the "3 R's" are something that kids should just be allowed to "discover"

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here. My home page is here

***************************