By Professor Doom
It seems every
school is loading up on Diversity Officers, filling up Diversity Palaces as
they preach Diversity. It’s obnoxious, of course, all the more so because of
the ridiculous, truly ridiculous, amounts
of money poured into these Diversity Officers:
Campus diversity czars frequently draw massive salaries. The
University of Michigan's chief diversity officer, for example, rakes in $396,000 a year.
That’s a state
school, folks, and you need to understand this guy is supported by a massive
staff of vice-presidents and whatnot, each making sums of money that I can
never hope to make as faculty In higher ed. No, I’m not asking for more money,
but I must point that I actually teach students, actually write and publish1…I
advance the university’s mission of education and research at least a tiny,
tiny, increment.
I’ve often
commented that, empirically, the main job of these Diversity Officers is to
increase racial strife. I’ve cited campus after campus after campus where we
see Diversity Officers actively causing trouble. It’s their job, you see, for
they use the trouble to demonstrate their job is necessary.
I know, this is
just a blog, and even a large family of anecdotes still doesn’t qualify as a
real study in any legitimate science. Is anyone studying to see if there’s an
actual benefit to having these wildly overpaid hustlers on campus?
Turns out, yes:
The above study is
from the National Bureau of Economic Research. They defined “benefit” in a way
a normal person would consider questionable: the Diversity Officers are
supposed to be increasing “Diverse” faculty hiring, that is to say the hiring
of anyone but white males. That’s a questionable benefit if ever there was one,
but let’s go with the flow here.
Again, I’ve
highlighted several overt cases where the hiring was obviously racist. I use
the adjective “overt” because many campuses have had unwritten racist and
sexist hiring policies for a very long time, but now we even see explicit political
leaning policies in hiring as well, even in mathematics.
So, before moving
on to the results of the study, I really want to point it out clearly:
Diversity Officers are fundamentally racist job positions, every bit of an
abomination to higher ed as mandating every campus must have an anointed Grand
Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan.
And the guy at
the top of each diversity fiefdom is paid around $400,000 a year with our tax
dollars.
So what were the
results of the study?
"We are unable to find significant statistical evidence that
preexisting growth in diversity for underrepresented racial/ethnic minority
groups is affected by the hiring of an executive level diversity
officer," write the study's authors
Now, “science” has
a real problem right now in that many of our
research studies cannot be replicated. Perhaps I’ll go into great detail
on why this happened, but for now, the basic idea is it’s very simple to
manipulate data statistically to get whatever result you want, because there
aren’t official rules as to what manipulation is allowed. When you get a benefit
for a study with a result, and a penalty for a study with no result, and get to
decide if you want a result or not…you better believe “scientists” will get
studies with results.
The above study,
however, is a “no result” study, they’re saying they could find no evidence of
any of the supposed benefit to having Diversity Officers on campus (I should point
out that these huge boondoggles are a big feature of public schools, but far
less so of private schools—especially for-profits, who, while scammy, aren’t
about to waste their money on these useless demagogues).
Diversity fiefdoms
employ dozens of race-baiters, with multi-million dollar budgets…the kind of
budgets that could fully pay the tuition of hundreds of students a year, every
year.
It’s not just a waste of money and squandered
opportunity to save kids from a lifetime of student loan debt, of course, since
often Diversity Officers promote race riots and other events which are very
detrimental to the school (Hi Mizzou, though you’re certainly not alone!).
Now, some might
think this study is politically biased, and that these researchers simply had
an axe to grind. I think not. Consider
this quote:
“Although important progress has been made in
increasing faculty and administrator diversity from 2001 to 2016, we believe
more work must be done to better understand barriers to increased diversity,
and how they might be best addressed.”
So, the
researchers believe that “more work” must be done to increase diversity, and
believe there are “barriers” that are not already well understood (eg,
“different people are different” is still a confusing concept to them). Seeing
as the researchers are drinking the proverbial Cool-Aid regarding diversity as
a fundamental benefit, I’m inclined to believe they found no result
because…there’s no result.
I also won’t be
expecting a single state school to look at this study and go “hmm, maybe we
don’t need quite so many of these guys on campus.” After all, every dollar
spent on faculty is a dollar that won’t go into administrative pay, and the
more admin you have, the more you can pay them—it’s win-win when you hire
diversity officers over faculty.
Except for the
students, of course, as every diversity officer hired is a loss for students.
No worries, since all those diversity officers are paid for by student loans,
which most students consider free money, at least until they leave campus and
those first payments come due.
Gee, I wonder if
we’d stop wasting money on Diversity Kommissars if there was no student loan
money paying for them? Can’t wait to see the study on that idea…
1. Technically I should use the past tense here, but if I
get quite lucky I might still teach again. Maybe.
No comments:
Post a Comment