Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Morehouse And The Myth Of “Diversity”

Post below recycled from Discriminations. See the original for links

Morehouse College in Atlanta, alma mater of Martin Luther King Jr. and widely regarded as one of the top colleges in the country, and the best for black men, has just made the news by graduating the first white valedictorian in its 141 year history. I’m not sure how many non-black students were enrolled at Morehouse this year, but I’m sure there weren’t many. Back in 1998 an article mentioned that a freshman from Indianapolis “was one of two white full-time students at Morehouse this year,” and added:
Enrollment of white students at Morehouse, founded in 1867, varies from none some years to two or three in a year, said a spokesman.

But wait. Haven’t we loudly, insistently, and incessantly been told that without pigmentary “diversity” there can be no real education? How can “segregated” Morehouse be so successful? By 1998, it’s clear, Morehouse was clearly feeling a bit defensive about its absence of “diversity.”
“Morehouse has always had a diverse, international faculty and staff,” college president Walter E. Massey. “For years ... the school maintained an interracial vision and hosted interracial conferences in defiance of Georgia’s Jim Crow laws.”

So can we assume that if an institution has an “interracial vision” it doesn’t have to actually be interracial? This sounds like “diversity for thee, but not for me.” Not at all, says Sterling Hudson, currently dean of admissions at Morehouse.
I think some of our alumni are a little nervous about a white student graduating from Morehouse with all of its rich history for producing African-American male leaders. But I don't think it's contradictory at all.... “We’re not aggressively pursuing white students,” says Hudson. “But like every other college, we’re interested in diversity. So, if a white student becomes interested in Morehouse — of course we are going to treat him like any other student.”

Of course in this regard Morehouse is not at all like — it’s more like the polar opposite of — every other selective college in the country, all of whom, in the name of “diversity,” are aggressively competing for and courting the unfortunately small pool of highly qualified minority students. “Of course” those other colleges do anything but “treat [minority applicants] like any other student[s].” But that’s not all Hudson said. He continued:
“The interesting thing about [valedictorian] Josh [Packwood]’s experience is that he had a full Morehouse experience,” says Hudson. “When he marches across the stage on May 18 and receives his diploma, he’s going to be a Morehouse Man in every way — except ethnicity.” “I don’t think ethnicity makes the difference; it’s what’s in his heart.”

Perhaps the rest of selective higher education in this country should follow the lead laid out by Morehouse and its valedictorian.
“What Morehouse stands for at the end of the day, and what Dr. King epitomized, it’s not about black or white, it’s about the content of [a person’s] character,” says Packwood. “It’s about me, representing Morehouse in that light -- not as a white man or a black man.”

I suppose there’s nothing ironic about Martin Luther King’s vision being, even if somewhat awkardly, alive and well at his alma mater while the remainder of selective higher education institutions in the country trip over themselves and each other in their racial classifying and their frantic attempts to produce racial balancing. It’s not ironic; it’s worse.







Pro-Abortion Expression Permitted, Pro-Life Forbidden at a major Australian University

The Student Union at Queensland University have shown themselves to be opposed to differing opinion and free speech like many other secular universities around the world. The school's Newman Society has been censored and threatened with disaffiliation from the student union because union leaders believed the group's "pro-woman" and "pro-pregnancy" campaign took a stand against abortion. The poster and leaflets, displayed on a booth outside the student caf,, did not mention abortion but featured a photograph of an eight week old child in the womb, and offered compassion and support for young women who might find themselves facing the difficult challenge of an unplanned pregnancy.

Elise Nally, third-year applied science student and Newman Society secretary, said in a report by The Australian that the union's action was totalitarian and against free speech. "I'd like to know what laws we've broken," Nally said. "The union is acting like a dictator."

Joshua Young, president of the student union, gave this explanation for the union's actions against Catholics on campus: "I know the Newman Society thinks the union is being heavy handed, but the student union voted in 1993 for free, safe abortion on demand so all women have a genuine choice when faced with unwanted pregnancy." From a student body of 30,000, a total of approximately 3,500 voted in the 1993 referendum, with about 1900 in favor of abortion rights, 1400 against, and 200 abstaining. When asked if the vote precludes other views being advocated in campus debate, Young said, "It does."

The Australian Catholic Students Association (ACSA), which represents Catholic students in schools throughout Australia, issued a statement criticizing the decision of the student union. The statement said that pro-life groups had been active at the University of Queensland for five years after the student referendum's passage in 1993 and no disciplinary action was taken against them. The ACSA argued that the referendum only established the school as a pro-choice campus, and did not require any particular viewpoint to be suppressed.

"ACSA is concerned that the use of a 15 year old referendum by the UQ Union to take disciplinary action against the Society raises serious concerns for students' freedom of speech and the implications this might have on other student groups at The University of Queensland," the statement declared.

ACSA National President Camillus O'Kane said that, "if the truth becomes something we can simply vote for, it becomes a weapon that can be used against others. This is why freedom of speech is one of the guiding principles of our society. It is a shame that this incident has occurred at one of Australia's leading universities, a place of learning where we should be able to express our views freely."

Source

1 comment:

Unknown said...

Before readers of this article judge the union president in his actions, you may not know that the union president’s hands are tied by the current rules of the union.

As the uq union is a voluntary association, all materials produced by student clubs affiliated to the union need to be approved by the union president. If the union president approves material that is against union policy as previously determined by referendum then the president can be summarily dismissed from office.

In this case the Newman Society put the union president in a very difficult position. They didn’t seek the approval of the president for their materials before they distributed it. Then when the president told them that the material could not go out with the official sanction of the union because it contravened settled policy, they cried foul.

It seems that this entire exercise was a cynical publicity stunt on behalf of the Newman Society to gain publicity by flagrating violating rules for union-affiliated clubs - which they were clearly aware of. The Newman Society know full well that they could have distributed materials on campus as “UQ Catholics” or whatever.

However, what they really wanted to do was cause trouble for the conservative union exec and get some publicity out of the whole exercise. If the Newman Society REALLY felt passionate about this issue, they would assemble the 1500 signatures required to hold a new referendum instead of trying to manipulate the union president into breaking the very rules that he has to keep!

As an affiliated club of long standing, this club knew FULL WELL that all club material must be approved by the Union President. This is a legal requirement as the Union is an unincorporated association and as such, the President is held to be PERSONALLY liable for all material produced by the union and its affiliates - ie. clubs and socs.

Every O Week the Newman Society gets all its materials approved by the union president. However, with regard to this occasion, this club specifically chose to NOT seek approval. Remember the Gospel of Matthew - “By their works, you shall know them.”

The clubs and socs committee of the union determined that this club failed to seek the approval of the president before you distributed your materials. This rule applies to all club and societies - whether Christian, Muslim, atheist or socialist. Any claimed ignorance on this matter is disingenuous as the members continued to distribute this material AFTER they were asked to seek the president’s approval.

Even pro-life readers should stop to consider why an avowedly pro-life club WOULD WANT to affiliate with an AVOWEDLY pro-abortion student union. The whole exercise is a publicity stunt designed to confect a sense of moral outrage and get people's names in the paper. It's an exercise in self-promotion of the most cynical kind.

One of the main causes of abortion includes rape, entrenched poverty and lack of access or information about contraceptives. I have NEVER seen the Newman Society at UQ run a campaign on rape, entrenched poverty or contraception. If they truly wanted to reduce the number of abortions in Australia, they would get active around these issues.

But we know they won't. And we know that they won't run a referendum to change the union's policy. Why? No publicity in it.

No wonder people become cynical about religion and politics!