I worked at Fannie Mae for seven years. I know how “diversity” works, and Professor Victor Davis Hanson has it EXACTLY right. You seem to be clinging to some archaic notion that affirmative action is helpful, and you fail to notice the destructive consequences of that policy. I believe “diversity” and “affirmative action” are very “do-good” ideas, but until we get to the point of judging people for the content of their character and not the color of their skin, then we will continue to endure racism. Affirmative action and clumsy “diversity” programs extend racism from what I’ve seen in the real world. I think if you woke up and were honest with yourself, you might see the same thing. I could be wrong.
Man up, you pansies
So the incomparable Victor Davis Hanson spoke truth to stupidity about “diversity,” and the stupid responded the only way the stupid know how: with a gutless anonymous attempt to shout down an argument they didn’t like and aren’t capable of engaging — and in fact, made absolutely no effort to engage.
You claim Hanson damages Stanford with his undeniable truths? No, you damage Stanford with your lockstep “thinking” and inability to partake in a reasoned (and reasonable) exchange of ideas — yet isn’t that supposed to be the whole reason universities exist? Cowards. You are a disgrace to your institution, and to America. How ’bout you grow some and actually take on the debate? You’ve already lost it, of course, so it’s understandable that you avoid it — but it’s not understandable that you try to silence your intellectual betters along the way.
On the other hand, if it was your goal to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt one of Hanson’s primary points, that “the university is the most politically intolerant and monolithic institution in the country,” well then, I congratulate you on a job superbly done.
Truth is something that leftists cannot abide
I love how the extreme Left (and I mean those united progressives at your paper) respond to the TRUTH. Truth is something that leftists cannot abide; it is not touchy-feely, or perhaps it doesn’t sound nice, or maybe it doesn’t make the reader feel good. However, it passes the rigorous examinations of fact, and if it impeaches the rigidly held beliefs of the small-minded leftists, it must be countered with personal attacks and slurs that are based on beliefs and feelings, and not facts. Racist? How can any reputable journalist come to such a conclusion? Perhaps I should reiterate what a journalist is supposed to do: “Who, what, where, why, in an unbiased, factual manner.” Basic journalism has never been abandoned so freely as by the sophomoric hacks at your poor little unprincipled paper.
James A. Ramsey