9 Comments
Once Dean of Columbia College, Prof. Michelle Moody-Adams, has a new commentary piece in The Chronicle of Higher Education wherein she suggests a new vision for supporting educational opportunities in underserved segments of society. Interestingly, MMA criticizes the traditional approach to affirmative action as fundamentally flawed:
It has sometimes been argued that affirmative action would have a trickle-down effect, whereby minority students would choose careers and life plans designed to expand opportunity in their communities. But, not surprisingly, minority students have turned out to be like students in general: By and large, college students do not feel obligated to define their personal goals in the context of broader social goods. Nor should they, since a college experience can be a catalyst for extraordinary self-development and personal change.
Profile via College Today
Loading …
9 Comments
@Cloaked Assassin Just liek speç to flaunt their racism and hide it behind a black woman so it does not appear racist. If the students that come here do not have sufficient socioeconomic status, then that is because it is the will of a supreme deity and thus we should embrace this dearth of diversity on campus. Unlike the speç, we are not completely without the divine light, like a certain newspaper whose name shall not be spoke. Rise against the speç and may you gain favor with the deity of your choice!!
@??? Why do you find it interesting that she criticizes traditional affirmative action, Bwog?
@... Because it is news, and it is interesting. Are we not allowed to discuss the pros and cons of affirmative action in a realistic and informed public forum? Also, why does Bwog’s reporting of it imply that it is making any critique of affirmative action?
@??? Way to jump to conclusions friend!
Here was the line I was commenting on:
“Interestingly, MMA criticizes the traditional approach to affirmative action as fundamentally flawed:”
I was simply asking why they found that interesting. I agree that it’s interesting. But the way it was written gave no indication of why Bwog felt that way. Was it because she is a black women? Was it because they have not heard another academic criticize affirmative action? The reality is that this issue has been criticized widely. But why would they describe her thoughts as “interestingly”?
To address your follow-up questions:
– Yes, of course you are allowed to discuss the pros and cons in a realistic and informed public forum. I never said anything to the contrary. You assumed that I felt that way.
(However, is Bwog really the best forum for a debate on this issue?)
– I don’t think Bwog’s reporting of this issue imply that it is making a critique of affirmative action. YOU made that assumption.
Moving forward, maybe you should reread the post you are responding to and consider that the writer was simply trying to engage in the discussion of “the pros and cons of affirmative action”.
@Anonymous Because there is no logical reasoning behind affirmative action. The process is a form of Social Marxism. Didn’t Martin Luther King Jr. once say, “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character?” Liberals only see people in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, and sexuality; hence, they are incapable of understanding of how anyone else could possibly evaluate a person’s merit based on any other criteria. What about minorities like Clarence Thomas or Marco Rubio or Condoleezza Rice? All achieved great success without the aid of affirmative action. Claiming that minorities need affirmative action to succeed is an idea I find extremely offensive as do Thomas, Rubio, and Rice.
If affirmative action really does help minority groups, then why does the system unfairly punish Asians and Pacific Islanders over all other groups?
In reality, the system is another entitlement designed to cause dependency among minority voters.
@Anonymous This is really badly written. Like the sentence structure and phrasing is just horrible. Bwog, please have better writers cover interesting news like this. Save the shitty writers for your rants about pre-professionalism.
@Anonymous @Anonymous: I don’t know what you’re talking about. It reads like regular journalism. What, are you expecting the prose to read like Flaubert?
@Anonymous No, it reads like a bad attempt at journalism by a bad writer. I wasn’t expecting Flaubert… I was hoping not to encounter poor phrasing choices like leading with “Once Dean” and “criticizes the traditional approach as fundamentally flawed.” This writer should not quit his/her day job (which is likely majoring in something that enables him/her to sit around “philosophizing” and smelling his/her own farts).
@Anonymous *poorly written