Diversity Meeting: No Whites Permitted

At Hey WTF? News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Hey WTF? News and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Hey WTF? News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Hey WTF? News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

• Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Hey WTF? News.
• Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Hey WTF? News and other sites on the Internet.
• Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Hey WTF? News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Hey WTF? News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Hey WTF? News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.

Diversity Meeting: No Whites Permitted

The Outdated Business Model of Diversity Inc.

Diversity has become corporatized on American campuses, with scores of bureaucrats and administrators accentuating different pedigrees and ancestries. That’s odd, because diversity does not mean any more “variety” or “points of difference,” at least as it used to be defined.

Instead, diversity has become an industry synonymous with orthodoxy and intolerance, especially in its homogeneity of political thought.

When campuses sloganeer “celebrate diversity,” that does not mean encouraging all sorts of political views. If it did, faculties and student groups would better reflect U.S. political realities and might fall roughly into two equal groups: liberal and conservative.

Do colleges routinely invite graduation speakers who are skeptical of man-made global warming, and have reservations about present abortion laws, gay marriage or illegal immigration — if only for the sake of ensuring diverse views?

Nor does diversity mean consistently ensuring that institutions should reflect “what America looks like.”

If it did, all sorts of problems could follow. As we see in the NBA and NFL, for example, many of our institutions do not always reflect the proportional racial and ethnic makeup of America. Do we really want all institutions to weigh diversity rather than merit so that coveted spots reflect the race and gender percentages of American society?

Does anyone care that for decades the diverse state of California’s three most powerful elected officials have been most un-diverse? Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Dianne Feinstein are uniformly mature women, quite liberal, very wealthy, married to rich professionals or entrepreneurs, and who once lived within commuting distance of each other in the Bay Area.

Is the University of California, Berkeley, ethnically diverse? If it were, Asian students might have to be turned away, given that the percentage of Asian students at UC Berkeley is about three times as great as the percentage of Asian residents in California’s general population.

Gender disparity is absolutely stunning on American campuses. Women now earn about 61 percent of all associate degrees and 57 percent of all bachelor’s degrees. With such disproportionate gender representation, do we need outreach offices on campus to weigh maleness in admissions? Should college presidents investigate whether the campus has become an insidiously hostile place for men?

Diversity Inc. is also based on a number of other fundamental shaky assumptions. Race, gender and politics are supposed to count far more in a diverse society than other key differences. Yet in a multiracial nation in which the president of the United States and almost half the Supreme Court are not white males, class considerations that transcend race and gender often provide greater privilege.

Is the daughter of Hillary Clinton in greater need of affirmative action or diversity initiatives than the children of the Oklahoma diaspora who settled in Bakersfield? So-called “white privilege” might certainly refer to the elite networks of insider contacts who promote the scions of Al Gore, Chris Matthews or Warren Buffett. But how about the son of an unemployed Appalachian coal miner? Not so much.

If ethnic, rather than class, pedigrees provide an edge, how do we ascertain them in today’s melting-pot culture? Does the one-quarter Latino student, the recent arrival from Jamaica or the fourth-generation Japanese-American deserve special consideration as “diverse”? And if so, over whom? The Punjabi-American? The Arab-American? The gay rich kid? The coal miner’s daughter? Or the generic American who chooses not to broadcast his profile?

Does Diversity Inc. rely on genetic testing, family documents, general appearance, accented names, trilled pronunciation or just personal assurance to pass judgment on who should be advantaged in any measurement of diversity?

In such an illiberal, tribally obsessed and ideologically based value system, it is not hard to see why and how careerists such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren and activist Ward Churchill were able to fabricate helpful Native American ancestries.

Diversity came into vogue after affirmative action became unworkable in the 1980s. Given the multiplicity of ethnicities, huge influxes of new immigrants and a growing rate of intermarriage, it became almost impossible to adjudicate historical grievances and dole out legal remedies. So just creating “diversity” — without much worry over how to define it — avoided the contradictions.

But diversity is not only incoherent; it is also ironic. On a zero-sum campus short of resources, the industry of diversity and related “studies” classes that focus on gender or racial differences and grievances crowd out exactly the sort of disciplines that provide the skills — mastery of languages, literature, science, engineering, business and math — that best prep non-traditional graduates for a shot at well-compensated careers.

Red/blue state divides have never more acrimonious. The number of foreign-born citizens is at a record high. The global status of the United States has never been shakier. To meet all these existential challenges, American institutions — the university especially — would be wise to stress unity and academic rigor.

People in the Balkans, Rwanda and Iraq certainly championed their ethnic differences in lieu of embracing concord and ethnically and religiously blind meritocracy.

Tragically, these are also examples of where the logic of privileging differences, and dividing and judging people by the way they look and believe, ultimately ends up. 

RealClearPolitics – Articles

The Outdated Business Model of Diversity Inc.

REPORT: Partisanship And Diversity On The Sunday Shows In 9 Charts

The four broadcast networks’ Sunday morning political talk shows guests skewed right during the first quarter of 2013. MSNBC’s two Sunday programs featured far greater gender and ethnic diversity in its guests than the broadcast programs and CNN’s Sunday morning political talk show.

Republicans And Conservatives Dominate Broadcast Networks’ Sunday Show Guest Lineups

Broadcast Networks Hosted Republican And Conservative Guests Most Often. Out of 400 total guests hosted by ABC’s This Week, CBS’ Face the Nation, NBC’s Meet the Press, and Fox’s Fox News Sunday during the first three months of 2013, 40 percent were either Republicans or conservatives while only 29 percent were Democrats or progressives. Centrist, nonpartisan, and ideologically neutral guests made up 31 percent. 

Each Network Hosted More Guests From The Right Than The Left. Republicans and conservatives outpaced Democrats and progressives on all four networks. Fox News Sunday had the largest discrepancy, with 53 percent of guests being Republicans or conservatives and only 24 percent being Democrats or progressives.

Elected Republicans Were Hosted More Often Than Elected Democrats And Obama Administration Officials. Except for Face the Nation, elected Republicans were featured on the Sunday shows significantly more often than elected Democrats and Obama administration officials combined. Again, Fox News Sunday was the worst offender, with 67 percent of guests in this category being Republicans.

Elected Republicans Featured In More Solo Interviews Than Elected Democrats and Obama Administration Officials. On Fox News Sunday and Meet the Press particularly, Republicans received significantly more solo interviews than Democrats. When adjusting for the amount of time devoted to interviewees as opposed to the raw number of interviews, the contrast between Republicans and Democrats grows even larger on Meet The Press. And while Face the Nation has given more solo interviews to Democrats, that lead shrinks when accounting for the amount of time devoted to interviewees. This Week — despite hosting more Republicans for solo interviews than Democrats in raw number — gave Democrats more total time during their interviews.

Four Of The Top Five Guests With The Most Solo Interviews Were Republicans. Leading the pack was Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and former Republican Governor Jeb Bush with five solo interviews each. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Paul Ryan (R-WI), and senior Obama advisor David Plouffe round out the top five with four interviews each.

Partisan And Ideological Journalists Were More Likely To Be Conservative Than Progressive. While a majority of journalists, pundits, and commentators on these programs were neutral, when partisan and ideological journalists were hosted, they were much more likely to be conservative nearly across the board. Once again, this disparity was especially true on Fox News Sunday, where 47 percent of journalist guests were conservative. 

Imbalanced Panels Overwhelmingly Tilted To The Right. On all four networks, when roundtable and panel discussions were imbalanced, they were far more likely to be tilted in favor of conservatives. Fox News Sunday was the worst again, with 65 percent of panels having more conservative guests than progressives and none having more progressive guests than conservatives. 

MSNBC Provides Greater Guest Diversity Than Broadcast Networks, CNN

MSNBC’s Sunday Shows Hosted Significantly More Women Than Those Of The Broadcast Networks Or CNN’s State Of The Union. Melissa Harris-Perry and Up with Chris Hayes hosted women 45 percent and 38 percent of the time, respectively. Meet the Press was the worst in this category; only 20 percent of the program’s guests were women.

MSNBC’s Guests Were Much More Ethnically Diverse Than Broadcast Shows Or CNN. Melissa Harris-Perry was the only show to host a majority of non-white guests — 39 percent of guests were African-American, 4 percent were Latino, 4 percent were Asian-American, and 1 were percent Arab-American. Up was still significantly more diverse than broadcast and CNN, with 37 percent of guests being non-white. No other program had a guest pool that was less than 82 percent white; Fox News Sunday was the least ethnically diverse, with 91 percent of guests being white.

MSNBC’s Programs Were The Only Ones Not Dominated By White Men. Both Melissa Harris-Perry and Up hosted white men in line with their representation in the general population (approximately 39 percent, according to U.S. Census data). By contrast, white men were significantly overrepresented on the broadcast and CNN Sunday shows.

Methodology

This study followed the same methodology as the previous Media Matters study, “If It’s Sunday, It’s Still Conservative.”

We reviewed every edition of ABC’s This Week, CBS’ Face The Nation, NBC’s Meet The Press, Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday, CNN’s State of the Union, and the Sunday editions of MSNBC’s Up with Chris Hayes and Melissa Harris-Perry during the first quarter of 2013. Guest appearances for all seven programs were coded for gender and ethnicity. Guests appearing on the four broadcast networks were also coded for whether they appeared in solo interviews or as part of a panel; whether they were journalists, administration officials, or elected officials; and for their partisanship or ideology.

These classifications do not represent an analysis of what guests actually said when they appeared on a show on a given date. Coding each guest’s comments for their ideological slant would have introduced enormous difficulties and opportunities for subjectivity. Instead, we simply classified guests based on their own ideological self-identification or public affiliation with an openly partisan or ideological organization or institution.

In the vast majority of cases, guests are clearly identifiable by their party or ideology (or as having none). Of course, in a few instances, these decisions were not as simple to make. We therefore constructed rules that could be applied as strictly as possible. Where a guest’s identification was in question, Media Matters chose to err on the side of listing that guest toward the left.

Following are some of the principal rules coders employed in classifying guests:

• The party designations (Democratic and Republican) are reserved for current and former officeholders, candidates, campaign staff, political consultants associated with one party or the other, and administration officials. All others are labeled conservative, progressive, or neutral.


• The neutral category does not necessarily imply strict ideological neutrality but, rather, might better be understood as neutral/centrist/nonpartisan — we use the term “neutral” for the sake of brevity.


• When guests served in both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past, they were coded as neutral barring any compelling reason to do otherwise. In a few cases, however, a former official who had served under presidents from both parties became clearly identified with one ideology and were coded accordingly.


• Our “Journalist” classification applies not only to daily reporters but also to opinion columnists, magazine writers, etc.


• In the case of foreign officials and journalists, we labeled all as neutral — even though the political ideology of some might be identifiable — to avoid the need to analyze the politics of other countries. Foreign nationals were also excluded from the diversity analysis.


• Active duty members of the armed forces were classified as members of the Obama administration. Retired officers were coded as neutral absent any other affiliation.

Ben Dimiero, Eric Hananoki, and Oliver Willis provided additional research. Charts by Alan Pyke.

Media Matters for America – Research Items

REPORT: Partisanship And Diversity On The Sunday Shows In 9 Charts