Quote

People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Diversity = Conformity?

If this exposé in "The Torch," the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's website, is any indication, the concept of "diversity" on the Virginia Tech campus goes well beyond conformity. It's the kind of stuff the Soviets would have been proud of.

At Virginia Tech, diversity = inviolable lockstep.

Say what?
Virginia Tech to Demand ‘Diversity’ Conformity by Vote
The Torch

Suppose the provost at your college started a new "patriotism" initiative. In the first year, he would permit faculty members to self-report their "patriotism accomplishments." In the second year, faculty members would be strongly encouraged to report their "patriotism accomplishments" on their annual reports of their activities. In the third year, faculty members would be told that "patriotism accomplishments are especially important for faculty seeking tenure and promotion," and dossiers for tenure and promotion would include a multi-part section on "patriotism."

Or put the word "Christianity" in place of "patriotism." Suppose the provost tells all faculty, graduate students, and tenure and review committees that Christian activities are something they can choose to report in their self-assessments. After three years, there is a "Christian accomplishments" section in the tenure dossier, a list of approved activities, and strong pressure to incorporate Christian themes into faculty members' research, teaching, and professional development.

Do you think this kind of thing couldn't happen at a public university? It's been happening at Virginia Tech. Just change "patriotism" or "Christianity" to a different matter of individual conscience: dedication to "diversity." FIRE, the National Association of Scholars, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, the student newspaper, and others have all come out strongly against Virginia Tech's coercive policy of pressuring faculty to show their commitment to "diversity" in their research, teaching, and professional development.

If you wouldn't stand for a mandatory "patriotism" or "Christianity" assessment for faculty merit raises, promotion, and tenure, you can't stand for a mandatory "diversity" assessment either. And neither can the First Amendment. [link]
"Mandatory diversity."

Mandatory diversity.

Read the whole thing. Then go to "Mark Bauerlein on Virginia Tech Diversity Requirement for Faculty Assessment."

Then read "FIRE Letter to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University President Charles W. Steger."

And "FIRE Calls on Virginia Tech to Abandon New Political Litmus Test for Faculty."

Then, if you haven't been frightened enough, go to "Commitment to Diversity as a Job Requirement."

This, friends, is sobering stuff.

Virginia Tech. What has this once-superlative institution of higher learning, this former bastion of individual freedoms, this oasis where the sanctity of reason and conscience were championed, come to?

Celebrate If You Will

Some would argue - with a good deal of justification - that Virginia Tech celebrates "Gay Awareness Week" 52 weeks a year. At the point of a gun. See above.

Others would argue that it is an attempt at showing the outside world, and the student body, that gay Americans are normal human beings, just like the rest of us.

If that's the case, though, why turn it into a freak show?
Transgendered minister Rev. Erin Swenson leads workshop in Blacksburg
By Tonia Moxley, Roanoke Times

It's been more than five decades since 11-year-old Eric Karl Swenson hid a newspaper clipping with the headline "Ex-Marine becomes bride" in a hole in the bedroom wall of his family home in Atlanta, Ga.

That story about a transsexual Korean War veteran who married a man in the late 1950s "was a thing of hope for me," the Rev. Erin Katrina Swenson said.

But it would take nearly 40 of those years for Swenson to come to grips with her gender identity. In that time, Eric Swenson would marry, father two children, become pastor of a Presbyterian congregation and establish a successful marriage and family therapy practice. Yet, he would struggle with crippling depression, even thoughts of suicide, before confronting himself, his family and his church with a truth he'd known since he was a child: He felt like he was a woman.

When Swenson asked the church to recognize her new name and identity, she touched off a nearly two-year fight to keep her ordination. She succeeded, and in 1996 became the first known mainline Protestant minister to transition from male to female while in ordained office.

So she has partnered with the Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign Foundation to help rally churches across the country to lobby for the legal rights of gay, lesbian and transgendered people at the annual Clergy Call for Justice and Equality scheduled for May 4-5 on Capitol Hill.

One of those participating churches is Glade Church in Blacksburg, which in conjunction with Virginia Tech's Gay Awareness Week celebration, will host two days of workshops with Swenson, said the Rev. Kelly Sisson of Glade. [link]
You too can celebrate. Gay Awareness Week over at Virginia Tech starts today. Go hug a homosexual.

For those of you who think I'm being harsh in calling this "minister" a freak, you need to come to grips with the fact that the selfish bastard ruined the lives of a wife and two children (two children who didn't ask to be brought into such circumstances but whose "father" had self-centered needs along those lines as well) so that he/she could "find" him/herself.

Freak is charitable.

Slimeball is more accurate.

And While Obama Rebuilds The Auto Industry ...

... his pals in Congress work to control the Earth's weather:

House Democrats Plan to Introduce Greenhouse-Gas Bill.

And they all wonder why Americans hold them in such low regard.

Common Sense From The Roanoke Times?

This editorial header this morning says it all:

Ask Boy Scouts to clean up

Problem solved.

The Bottom Line

New York Times analyst David E. Sanger on Obama's decision to take the reins of General Motors:
When he stood in the White House to unveil his approach, Mr. Obama took pains to assure the country — twice — that “the United States government has no interest in running G.M.”

If the generous health care plans that autoworkers have grown accustomed to are pared back, if wages fall to something closer to what workers at the Japanese and German transplants in the South are paid, it will be Mr. Obama — not G.M.’s management — who will be blamed.
Expect him to blame Bush.

You're Dreaming

It has taken the United States government 234 years to get the post office right (and, after all the effort, USPS is now on the brink of disaster). So that same government is going to get General Motors right in 60 days?

Pardon me for a moment while I try to stop the uncontrollable laughter:

The New York Times editorial page:
The Last Best Chance for Detroit

President Obama struck an acceptable compromise on Monday between two unappealing options: letting General Motors and Chrysler go bankrupt right away or giving them tens of billions of dollars more while hoping for the best. Instead, he decided to finance their operations for just a matter of weeks while forcing them to come up with a better plan to overhaul their businesses.

The government has 60 days to clean up G.M.’s balance sheet, eliminate debts and shed product lines and dealerships so it can emerge as a smaller, viable car company.

[T]he auto task force has come up with what seems to be the best shot we have at obtaining a viable auto industry. The president must stick to it. [link]
Right.

The small, viable government is going to create a "smaller, viable car company" in 60 days.

An effort to be led by a man who has 0 days experience in corporate governance.

Why am I less enthused about Obama's prospects than are those who have an equally broad-based background in business at the Times?

'The Best Defense ... Is None At All'

These people baffle the crap out of me. They scare me a little too. But I just can't understand the mindset that would prompt a college student (or former college student) to argue that one shouldn't try to defend oneself against a madman intent on killing everyone within eyesight - including him - because chances are slim that he would be successful in the attempt.

The better alternative, according to said genius, is to accept the bullet smashing into the brain cavity and die.

Idiot?

Without doubt, according to Rand Simberg.

See "Mindless."