德州率先禁止大學以種族、膚色、性別考量招生及雇用！ 19個共和黨州將跟進
hhsk
458 回覆
396 Like
10 Dislike
第 1 頁第 2 頁第 3 頁第 4 頁第 5 頁第 6 頁第 7 頁第 8 頁第 9 頁第 10 頁第 11 頁第 12 頁第 13 頁第 14 頁第 15 頁第 16 頁第 17 頁第 18 頁第 19 頁
BLM開始收皮？
紅州不嬲都想清走DEI, 藍州就越搞越多DEI 
https://thehill.com/opinion/education/480603-what-is-uc-davis-hiding-about-its-use-of-diversity-statements/
加州大學先最癲
What is UC Davis hiding about its use of diversity statements?
02/03/20
Last month, Abigail Thompson, a professor of mathematics and department chair at the University of California, Davis, wrote a scathing opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal calling out the university’s ideological litmus test for job applicants. She suggested that the university’s requirement that aspiring faculty members submit “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” statements amounts to a political “loyalty oaths.”
In response, the university released a woefully inaccurate statement written by the UC Davis chancellor and vice-chancellor — contradicted, as I discovered in a public records request, by the UC Davis administration itself. They claim that diversity statements are merely about determining “a candidate’s readiness and potential for serving the diverse population of students in California.” And their statement implies that all candidates are evaluated “holistically,” based not only on their diversity statements but also on their letters of recommendation and publication record. Both claims are incorrect.
In response to a public record request submitted to UC Davis, I received training material that the Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs used to prepare search committee members participating in the school’s Advancing Faculty Diversity pilot program. In a PowerPoint presentation from January 2019, administrators instructed search committee members to review a candidate’s “Contributions to Diversity” statement before any other part of an application, and that candidates who do not “look outstanding with regard to their contributions to diversity” would not advance for further consideration in the hiring process.
This looks more like a litmus test than a “holistic” evaluation. Indeed, when speaking to supporters of this initiative, the vice chancellor was much more candid, telling attendees at a conference on faculty diversity that “[t]he game-changer is that, in these searches, it is the candidate’s diversity statement that is considered first; only those who submit persuasive and inspiring statements can advance for complete consideration.”
The university’s claim that diversity statements are only intended to measure a faculty member’s ability to teach diverse students is also wrong. The evaluative rubrics provided by the administration and used by almost all of the schools in the pilot program make it clear that diversity statements were being used as an ideological screening tool. The rubrics say that any applicant who “provid[ed] reasons for not considering diversity in hiring” or who “[saw] it as antithetical to academic freedom or the university’s research mission” should receive a low score.
Whatever a candidate’s other merits, it seems that holding these views will make advancement beyond the diversity screening unlikely. As Abigail Thompson explained, “[r]ather than helping achieve inclusion, these DEI rubrics act as a filter for those with nonconforming views.”
I was curious as to exactly how many aspiring scholars had been rejected on these bases, solely because their diversity statements were deemed inadequate. But UC Davis administrators have not responded to my repeated requests for further information on the effects of these policies.
However, other University of California schools have published this information. In one recent search at UC Berkeley employing substantially similar evaluation techniques to those that UC Davis used, there were 893 qualified applicants who submitted complete applications that met the basic job requirements. Of those applicants, 679 were eliminated solely because their diversity statements were deemed inadequate.
加州大學先最癲
What is UC Davis hiding about its use of diversity statements?
02/03/20
Last month, Abigail Thompson, a professor of mathematics and department chair at the University of California, Davis, wrote a scathing opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal calling out the university’s ideological litmus test for job applicants. She suggested that the university’s requirement that aspiring faculty members submit “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” statements amounts to a political “loyalty oaths.”
In response, the university released a woefully inaccurate statement written by the UC Davis chancellor and vice-chancellor — contradicted, as I discovered in a public records request, by the UC Davis administration itself. They claim that diversity statements are merely about determining “a candidate’s readiness and potential for serving the diverse population of students in California.” And their statement implies that all candidates are evaluated “holistically,” based not only on their diversity statements but also on their letters of recommendation and publication record. Both claims are incorrect.
In response to a public record request submitted to UC Davis, I received training material that the Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs used to prepare search committee members participating in the school’s Advancing Faculty Diversity pilot program. In a PowerPoint presentation from January 2019, administrators instructed search committee members to review a candidate’s “Contributions to Diversity” statement before any other part of an application, and that candidates who do not “look outstanding with regard to their contributions to diversity” would not advance for further consideration in the hiring process.
This looks more like a litmus test than a “holistic” evaluation. Indeed, when speaking to supporters of this initiative, the vice chancellor was much more candid, telling attendees at a conference on faculty diversity that “[t]he game-changer is that, in these searches, it is the candidate’s diversity statement that is considered first; only those who submit persuasive and inspiring statements can advance for complete consideration.”
The university’s claim that diversity statements are only intended to measure a faculty member’s ability to teach diverse students is also wrong. The evaluative rubrics provided by the administration and used by almost all of the schools in the pilot program make it clear that diversity statements were being used as an ideological screening tool. The rubrics say that any applicant who “provid[ed] reasons for not considering diversity in hiring” or who “[saw] it as antithetical to academic freedom or the university’s research mission” should receive a low score.
Whatever a candidate’s other merits, it seems that holding these views will make advancement beyond the diversity screening unlikely. As Abigail Thompson explained, “[r]ather than helping achieve inclusion, these DEI rubrics act as a filter for those with nonconforming views.”
I was curious as to exactly how many aspiring scholars had been rejected on these bases, solely because their diversity statements were deemed inadequate. But UC Davis administrators have not responded to my repeated requests for further information on the effects of these policies.
However, other University of California schools have published this information. In one recent search at UC Berkeley employing substantially similar evaluation techniques to those that UC Davis used, there were 893 qualified applicants who submitted complete applications that met the basic job requirements. Of those applicants, 679 were eliminated solely because their diversity statements were deemed inadequate.
In other words, UC Berkeley rejected 76 percent of qualified applicants without even considering their teaching skills, their publication history, their potential for academic excellence or their ability to contribute to their field. As far as the university knew, these applicants could well have been the next Albert Einstein or Jonas Salk, or they might have been outstanding and innovative educators who would make a significant difference in students’ lives.
And there is reason to believe that the results at UC Davis were similar. A recent letter from the vice chancellor to the UC Davis faculty reveals that in at least some schools, more than 50 percent of the applicants were eliminated solely because of their diversity statements.
If UC Davis believes the wholesale exclusion of hundreds of potentially qualified applicants is justified, it should own up to what it has done and defend its actions publicly. But instead, the university has chosen to hide the truth. Thankfully, conscientious truth-tellers such as Abigail Thompson refuse to stay silent about what is being done at UC Davis in the name of diversity. Such courageous faculty members are taking a great personal and professional risk to defend freedom of thought in the academy, and they deserve our gratitude.
And there is reason to believe that the results at UC Davis were similar. A recent letter from the vice chancellor to the UC Davis faculty reveals that in at least some schools, more than 50 percent of the applicants were eliminated solely because of their diversity statements.
If UC Davis believes the wholesale exclusion of hundreds of potentially qualified applicants is justified, it should own up to what it has done and defend its actions publicly. But instead, the university has chosen to hide the truth. Thankfully, conscientious truth-tellers such as Abigail Thompson refuse to stay silent about what is being done at UC Davis in the name of diversity. Such courageous faculty members are taking a great personal and professional risk to defend freedom of thought in the academy, and they deserve our gratitude.
啲左膠唔係咁諗。
我都唔明
公開試多少反映到你下限幾多。
人哋老豆識人多過你，人哋老母疊水過你。
你要同佢鬥，點鬥，就只有公開試，你可以cancel 佢啲buff 同佢鬥。
公開試多少反映到你下限幾多。
人哋老豆識人多過你，人哋老母疊水過你。
你要同佢鬥，點鬥，就只有公開試，你可以cancel 佢啲buff 同佢鬥。
「恐」乜嘢恐吖，入學條件不嬲以學生學術水平同資質為標準，成日咩種族多元、包容，搞到大學烏煙瘴氣，學生質素下降。根本唔夠料入大學就唔好收
為左入大學亞裔係其他項目上都好高分所以先用personality 去減低亞裔個收生，如果唔係成間學校有4成係亞裔
因為太多亞裔所以唔准收咁多
類似，詳細要睇番法官個份判詞
讀書有壓力就一定㗎
美國個system重要係大把人入大學都唔知想揀咩科
有錢有背景咪屋企人一早plan好，幫仔女諗定
冇錢冇背景就唔知道，又冇機會接觸
最尾加劇segregation，又扮睇唔到
美國個system重要係大把人入大學都唔知想揀咩科
有錢有背景咪屋企人一早plan好，幫仔女諗定
冇錢冇背景就唔知道，又冇機會接觸
最尾加劇segregation，又扮睇唔到
佢應該唔敢再回應
講係公平姐
又係你個BU Social Science廢柴
其實你知唔知死考都係一個學術能力嚟?
好聽嚟講呢啲叫高壓環境下堅持學習
好多研究唔係無人諗，係無人做
其實你知唔知死考都係一個學術能力嚟?
好聽嚟講呢啲叫高壓環境下堅持學習
好多研究唔係無人諗，係無人做
傳統大學既觀念唔係精英集中地咩
有本事就入到無就躝㗎喇
有本事就入到無就躝㗎喇臭閪蚑那咪睇紅包喔，女既話仲要睇埋床上功夫
所以D華裔咪走晒去外國囉
咁咪好，早啲認清政府會咁做，唔洗嘥時間