|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jan 31, 2018 23:05:53 GMT -8
Welcome to Cal State San Diego.
That's what this feels like.
|
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Jan 31, 2018 23:19:22 GMT -8
I expected this *sigh*. What do you mean they would NEVER be asked of a man? I think they would be asked and they would be important questions - I know I'd like to know. So. if I wanted to know the marital status and/or child status of a man but not a woman, would that be sexist? Or, are men not allowed to be victims of sexism? Just a hypothetical question before you write it off as "pointless." Lastly, Is it sexist or just insensitive – and who gets the final say in the matter, anyway? If it's you, then I'd be willing to wager that A LOT of things offend you. The difference is that if this person were a white male, nobody would ever say: I understand that -- from an athletic standpoint -- this lady brings nothing to the table. I won't argue against that. And with this being a forum about SDSU athletics that's obviously an important issue to most of us. But personally, I don't like to make claims about things I don't know. So it really rubs me the wrong way when people immediately mention her race and sex as reasons for her hire. If someone wants to make that argument then they should be able to back it up with at least a little bit of discussion. Otherwise it's just another rant with not-so-subtle racist undertones.[/b] SDSU is getting its first Latina scholar to serve as president (UT Headline) Adela de la Torre, a UC Davis economist who has spent most of her career promoting better health among Latinas and Chicanos and social justice among students, has been named president of San Diego State University, which is facing tough challenges on enrollment, academic quality, fundraising and a possible expansion. (First Paragraph) De la Torre, 63, will become the first woman to serve as a permanent president of SDSU when she takes office in June, according to the California State University board of trustees, who chose her from a field of three finalists. (Second Paragraph) “It’s fantastic that the new president is a woman, and it’s fantastic that she’s Chicano, especially given how SDSU is now a designated ‘Hispanic Serving Institution’ by the Department of Education,” said Peter Herman, a veteran SDSU English professor. Adela de la Torre becomes the ninth permanent president of SDSU and the first woman to serve in that role. (SDSU's Sub-Heading on their website) Now, can you understand why people wonder to what extent race and sex played in her hiring? |
|
|
|
Post by bnastyaztecs on Feb 1, 2018 5:40:02 GMT -8
White Men They're Just Terrified They're about to Lose It."There is a reason white people and men resist diversity so fiercely. Points of access to the ruling class (like top universities) or centers of relevance and wealth (like Google and Uber, two of the most successful and widely hyped tech companies of our era) are immensely valuable; gaining entry to them can change your life or put you in the position to change the world. White men are fighting to keep those spaces white and male; as several people have pointed out via social media, it's probably not a coincidence that "colleges discriminating against whites" became a Department of Justice talking point in the same month that Harvard announced its freshman class would be made up of mainly people of color for the first time ever. The resistance is not necessarily due to malevolence — thanks to unconscious bias, the people most resistant to diversity might not even know that's what they're fighting. It's about comfort. When the population of a workplace is homogenous, so are the opinions. Certain questions don't get raised. Certain problems don't come up. Whiteness, and maleness, are never meaningfully challenged — nor are the white men present. We can see how painful those challenges evidently are from how vehemently many white men (and, let's be honest: white women, too) respond to them. The anti-diversity backlash is about the right to insulate yourself; it is about refusing to enter a space unless you are assured that you, and only you, will always matter more than other people. For much of history, that kind of exclusive consideration is something that white men have been able to take for granted. They're not going to just let go of it now." www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/news/a47242/google-anti-diversity-uber-affirmative-action/I'm just here to help.... |
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Feb 1, 2018 6:09:13 GMT -8
White Men They're Just Terrified They're about to Lose It."There is a reason white people and men resist diversity so fiercely. Points of access to the ruling class (like top universities) or centers of relevance and wealth (like Google and Uber, two of the most successful and widely hyped tech companies of our era) are immensely valuable; gaining entry to them can change your life or put you in the position to change the world. White men are fighting to keep those spaces white and male; as several people have pointed out via social media, it's probably not a coincidence that "colleges discriminating against whites" became a Department of Justice talking point in the same month that Harvard announced its freshman class would be made up of mainly people of color for the first time ever. The resistance is not necessarily due to malevolence — thanks to unconscious bias, the people most resistant to diversity might not even know that's what they're fighting. It's about comfort. When the population of a workplace is homogenous, so are the opinions. Certain questions don't get raised. Certain problems don't come up. Whiteness, and maleness, are never meaningfully challenged — nor are the white men present. We can see how painful those challenges evidently are from how vehemently many white men (and, let's be honest: white women, too) respond to them. The anti-diversity backlash is about the right to insulate yourself; it is about refusing to enter a space unless you are assured that you, and only you, will always matter more than other people. For much of history, that kind of exclusive consideration is something that white men have been able to take for granted. They're not going to just let go of it now." www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/news/a47242/google-anti-diversity-uber-affirmative-action/I'm just here to help.... Does this suggest we are skeptical of this hire because she's a woman and/or Latina? I'd be thrilled if she was the same race/gender but had a solid background. To me, this has nothing to do with her race/gender and everything to do with her bio/resume/background |
|
|
|
Post by Spud on Feb 1, 2018 6:24:51 GMT -8
I have the same feeling today as when we hired Tom Craft as our football coach...and it wasn't a good feeling... I'm thinking more like Chuck Long. I'll never forget getting the phone calls while I was at lunch saying Chuck Long was our new coach. I kept say WTF over and over. It didn't make sense and I'm thinking this one doesn't either. That one is a close second... |
|
|
|
Post by Frantic on Feb 1, 2018 6:29:56 GMT -8
To me, this has nothing to do with her race/gender and everything to do with her bio/resume/background Agreed. And that's the irony. Presumably she got the job because of her bio/resume/background. |
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Feb 1, 2018 6:33:24 GMT -8
White Men They're Just Terrified They're about to Lose It."There is a reason white people and men resist diversity so fiercely. Points of access to the ruling class (like top universities) or centers of relevance and wealth (like Google and Uber, two of the most successful and widely hyped tech companies of our era) are immensely valuable; gaining entry to them can change your life or put you in the position to change the world. White men are fighting to keep those spaces white and male; as several people have pointed out via social media, it's probably not a coincidence that "colleges discriminating against whites" became a Department of Justice talking point in the same month that Harvard announced its freshman class would be made up of mainly people of color for the first time ever. The resistance is not necessarily due to malevolence — thanks to unconscious bias, the people most resistant to diversity might not even know that's what they're fighting. It's about comfort. When the population of a workplace is homogenous, so are the opinions. Certain questions don't get raised. Certain problems don't come up. Whiteness, and maleness, are never meaningfully challenged — nor are the white men present. We can see how painful those challenges evidently are from how vehemently many white men (and, let's be honest: white women, too) respond to them. The anti-diversity backlash is about the right to insulate yourself; it is about refusing to enter a space unless you are assured that you, and only you, will always matter more than other people. For much of history, that kind of exclusive consideration is something that white men have been able to take for granted. They're not going to just let go of it now." www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/news/a47242/google-anti-diversity-uber-affirmative-action/I'm just here to help.... You didn't refute any point that was made. You just posted an article that claims there is some sort of sub-conscious bias, and that any criticism is a result of a perceived loss of power. Those paragraphs were non-sensical, and full of unverifiable assumptions. Is it possible that maybe, people here just want what is best for SDSU as well as Aztec football specifically, and they see this hire as one that does not support those efforts? |
|
|
|
Post by longtimebooster on Feb 1, 2018 7:14:34 GMT -8
I have the same feeling today as when we hired Tom Craft as our football coach...and it wasn't a good feeling... I'm thinking more like Chuck Long. I'll never forget getting the phone calls while I was at lunch saying Chuck Long was our new coach. I kept say WTF over and over. It didn't make sense and I'm thinking this one doesn't either. At least Chuck Long was the offensive coordinator for the national champion Oklahoma Sooners. That's something. And I'm no Chuck Long fan by any stretch. Wasn't then. Ain't now. But the selection of De la Torre would be more comparable to hiring the special teams coach from Appalachian St. Ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Feb 1, 2018 7:26:09 GMT -8
You didn't refute any point that was made. You just posted an article that claims there is some sort of sub-conscious bias, and that any criticism is a result of a perceived loss of power. Those paragraphs were non-sensical, and full of unverifiable assumptions. Is it possible that maybe, people here just want what is best for SDSU as well as Aztec football specifically, and they see this hire as one that does not support those efforts? Oh, but that's just not possible. We're not capable of wanting what's best (a truly qualified person, regardless of race & gender) for the school.  |
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Feb 1, 2018 7:32:56 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Feb 1, 2018 7:44:48 GMT -8
My question is how often does the vice chancellor interact with the chancellor?
I don’t know.
The article posted discusses the UC Davis President resigning due to spending over a million dollars of the school’s money for personal gain.
That’s why I posted the question. I am not at all familiar with how School administrations work so I can’t draw any conclusions.
|
|
|
|
Post by legkick on Feb 1, 2018 8:08:02 GMT -8
You didn't refute any point that was made. You just posted an article that claims there is some sort of sub-conscious bias, and that any criticism is a result of a perceived loss of power. Those paragraphs were non-sensical, and full of unverifiable assumptions. Is it possible that maybe, people here just want what is best for SDSU as well as Aztec football specifically, and they see this hire as one that does not support those efforts? You realize you're replying to someone with an identitarian agenda, who posted a link from Elle magazine, a fashion magazine? That goes a long way to explaining the nonsense in the paragraphs. |
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Feb 1, 2018 8:45:26 GMT -8
White Men They're Just Terrified They're about to Lose It."There is a reason white people and men resist diversity so fiercely. Points of access to the ruling class (like top universities) or centers of relevance and wealth (like Google and Uber, two of the most successful and widely hyped tech companies of our era) are immensely valuable; gaining entry to them can change your life or put you in the position to change the world. White men are fighting to keep those spaces white and male; as several people have pointed out via social media, it's probably not a coincidence that "colleges discriminating against whites" became a Department of Justice talking point in the same month that Harvard announced its freshman class would be made up of mainly people of color for the first time ever. The resistance is not necessarily due to malevolence — thanks to unconscious bias, the people most resistant to diversity might not even know that's what they're fighting. It's about comfort. When the population of a workplace is homogenous, so are the opinions. Certain questions don't get raised. Certain problems don't come up. Whiteness, and maleness, are never meaningfully challenged — nor are the white men present. We can see how painful those challenges evidently are from how vehemently many white men (and, let's be honest: white women, too) respond to them. The anti-diversity backlash is about the right to insulate yourself; it is about refusing to enter a space unless you are assured that you, and only you, will always matter more than other people. For much of history, that kind of exclusive consideration is something that white men have been able to take for granted. They're not going to just let go of it now." www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/news/a47242/google-anti-diversity-uber-affirmative-action/I'm just here to help.... Does this suggest we are skeptical of this hire because she's a woman and/or Latina? I'd be thrilled if she was the same race/gender but had a solid background. To me, this has nothing to do with her race/gender and everything to do with her bio/resume/background Here here! I am in total agreement. This has nothing to do with uncomfortable white men. This has everything to do with merit. I realize that is a bad word to some, but I side with MLK when we should judge a man by the content of his character and not the color of his skin. Everything we have seen surrounding this hire centers on her race and gender. If you take a moment to think about it, that has to be incredibly demeaning to de la Torre. Like anyone I am sure she wanted to be selected based on the body of her work, not her genetic lottery ticket. So in short, get the hell out of here with your race baiting "white men cant handle it" nonsense bnasty. It has no place in this conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by mySTRAS on Feb 1, 2018 8:46:21 GMT -8
White Men They're Just Terrified They're about to Lose It."There is a reason white people and men resist diversity so fiercely. Points of access to the ruling class (like top universities) or centers of relevance and wealth (like Google and Uber, two of the most successful and widely hyped tech companies of our era) are immensely valuable; gaining entry to them can change your life or put you in the position to change the world. White men are fighting to keep those spaces white and male; as several people have pointed out via social media, it's probably not a coincidence that "colleges discriminating against whites" became a Department of Justice talking point in the same month that Harvard announced its freshman class would be made up of mainly people of color for the first time ever. The resistance is not necessarily due to malevolence — thanks to unconscious bias, the people most resistant to diversity might not even know that's what they're fighting. It's about comfort. When the population of a workplace is homogenous, so are the opinions. Certain questions don't get raised. Certain problems don't come up. Whiteness, and maleness, are never meaningfully challenged — nor are the white men present. We can see how painful those challenges evidently are from how vehemently many white men (and, let's be honest: white women, too) respond to them. The anti-diversity backlash is about the right to insulate yourself; it is about refusing to enter a space unless you are assured that you, and only you, will always matter more than other people. For much of history, that kind of exclusive consideration is something that white men have been able to take for granted. They're not going to just let go of it now." www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/news/a47242/google-anti-diversity-uber-affirmative-action/I'm just here to help.... #metoo www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/26/14340542/white-fear-trump-psychology-minority-majority |
|
|
|
Post by mySTRAS on Feb 1, 2018 8:57:01 GMT -8
Does this suggest we are skeptical of this hire because she's a woman and/or Latina? I'd be thrilled if she was the same race/gender but had a solid background. To me, this has nothing to do with her race/gender and everything to do with her bio/resume/background Here here! I am in total agreement. This has nothing to do with uncomfortable white men. This has everything to do with merit. I realize that is a bad word to some, but I side with MLK when we should judge a man by the content of his character and not the color of his skin. Everything we have seen surrounding this hire centers on her race and gender. If you take a moment to think about it, that has to be incredibly demeaning to de la Torre. Like anyone I am sure she wanted to be selected based on the body of her work, not her genetic lottery ticket. So in short, get the hell out of here with your race baiting "white men cant handle it" nonsense bnasty. It has no place in this conversation. "... but I side with MLK when we should judge a man by the content of his character and not the color of his skin." Interesting use of the word 'man', that certainly isn't what MLK said that day. |
|
|
|
Post by ab on Feb 1, 2018 9:02:09 GMT -8
Does anybody know how to get in touch with Adam Day?
|
|
|
|
Post by fowl on Feb 1, 2018 9:04:24 GMT -8
And 15 years of her background is related to what SDSU calls Chicana/Chicano Studies. CSU's 23 campuses now have a number of presidents from one "minority" group or another. However, from the bio on the CSU website, not one has a background primarily in such a field and I doubt any of the UC campuses have a chancellor whose background is in such an area. Having checked SDSU's website, of Chicana/Chicano Studies' 21 faculty, just 12, or 57%, possess a Ph.D. I have a degree in history so just for the heck of it also checked that department's website and of its 25 professors, 21, or 84%, possess a Ph.D. I have little doubt those numbers approximate the norm in academia. When it was lawful in California, I supported affirmative action insofar as it meant that all things being otherwise relatively equal, the public interest in advancing historically underrepresented groups should dictate that a qualified applicant should get the job over a white male. But until I'm shown the CVs for other applicants for this position, I won't believe de la Torre's ethnicity and gender in combination with the politics of our time and the political pressure which has been brought to bear on SDSU about the Aztec mascot didn't play a bigger role in her getting the job than simply being a tiebreaker. My psot was meant to be facetious. I don't see why someone needs $4.8M of your tax dollars to tell Mexican-heritage mothers to stop feeding their children a lard-based diet and high caloric meals. Mix in some broccoli and a push-up now and then. In the early 1990's she was essentially a one-trick pony on the immigration issue. Here's a link to portions of her book "Moving from the Margins," where among other things she compares Pete Wilson to Hitler in connection with Wilson's decision to immediately enforce Prop 187. (see page 11). books.google.com/books/about/Moving_from_the_Margins.html?id=qydNAcUZklQC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=falseAlso, I disagree with our new president on the issue of illegal aliens. As I psoted earlier in this thread, last September she signed off on a letter voicing opposition the rescission of DACA stating: "We remember that many "undocumented" peoples are in fact indigineous to this continent, it is imposed borders that cloud this truth." This is right out of the MeCHA and La Raza playbook. www.facebook.com/UCDavisCHIstudies/photos/pcb.1930801840465050/1930800407131860/?type=3&theaterOn Nov. 9, 1938, Hitler's Nazi regime officially sanctioned the destruction of Jewish shops and synagogues, a major step forward in his drive to solve the "Jewish problem" in Germany. On Nov. 9 of this year, Governor Pete Wilson announced his executive order to immediately enforce provisions of Proposition 187 affecting the health of the most vulnerable of the Latino community, pregnant women and the elderly. Wilson could have waited for the courts to clarified the law, but, no longer a moderate, he has acquiesced to the right wing of the Republican Party, which demands not justice but tyranny, which values rhetoric over reason and which seeks to destroy rather than build. |
|
|
|
Post by longtimebooster on Feb 1, 2018 9:20:47 GMT -8
Geezus. Could we stop with the racial/sexist nonsense? How did Hitler get into this conversation. This has little to do with race or gender. It has everything to do with the newly anointed president's hollow resume. Just stick to that issue, please. All this other gibberish just muddies the water and is a distraction.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Feb 1, 2018 9:25:24 GMT -8
Geezus. Could we stop with the racial/sexist nonsense? How did Hitler get into this conversation. This has little to do with race or gender. It has everything to do with the newly anointed president's hollow resume. Just stick to that issue, please. All this other gibberish just muddies the water and is a distraction. And instead discussing merits, we start calling anyone who opposes racists. Typical. |
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Feb 1, 2018 9:31:04 GMT -8
Here here! I am in total agreement. This has nothing to do with uncomfortable white men. This has everything to do with merit. I realize that is a bad word to some, but I side with MLK when we should judge a man by the content of his character and not the color of his skin. Everything we have seen surrounding this hire centers on her race and gender. If you take a moment to think about it, that has to be incredibly demeaning to de la Torre. Like anyone I am sure she wanted to be selected based on the body of her work, not her genetic lottery ticket. So in short, get the hell out of here with your race baiting "white men cant handle it" nonsense bnasty. It has no place in this conversation. "... but I side with MLK when we should judge a man by the content of his character and not the color of his skin." Interesting use of the word 'man', that certainly isn't what MLK said that day. Yes, he said people. Sorry I didn't go through and do a detailed review before responding. So nice of you to imply I have some racist/sexist bias because of a misquote. Classy, especially since "man" has historically been used as the generic term for "people", not males specifically. But herein lies the problem. On a day we should be discussing the bonafides of the person selected to be the next president we are instead arguing about race/sex and who around here are apparently sexist bigots. Good job social justice warriors. |
|
