U. Michigan Hires Profs With ‘Expertise in Inequality and Structural Racism’
“[T]hose efforts are part of advancing the new DEI religion in higher education and directly contradict the core mission of a university”
In many places today, higher education is now explicitly about advancing the progressive political agenda, not education.
The College Fix reports:
UMich hires five ‘inequality and structural racism’ professors to ‘impact society’
The University of Michigan recently hired five faculty members under its Anti-Racism Faculty Hiring Initiative who have “expertise in inequality and structural racism,” campus officials announced.
The faculty will deepen the university’s expertise “on issues of race and racial justice and tangibly impact education and society,” according to an Oct. 28 statement by the university.
One of the focuses will be using “data science methods to detect, understand and reduce structural racism within health care, as well as racial health care disparities,” officials stated.
The five faculty members are part of a larger goal, announced earlier this year, to eventually hire nearly two dozen new “anti-racism” scholars at Michigan’s flagship university.
A university spokesperson could not be immediately reached by The College Fix this week asking about the overall costs of the initiative.
Mark Perry, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute and professor emeritus of economics and finance at the University of Michigan Flint, told The College Fix via email that “most colleges are spending way too much money on DEI efforts.”
He called it “incredibly wasteful.”
“[T]hose efforts are part of advancing the new DEI religion in higher education and directly contradict the core mission of a university – to educate students, teach critical thinking and expose them to intellectual diversity,” Perry said via email.
In Perry’s latest analysis of “diversicrats” at the University of Michigan, he found 126 employees at the school dealing with diversity, equity and inclusion in some way, with a total compensation estimated at $15.56 million for the 2021-22 academic year, enough money to recompense over 900 in-state student tuition bills.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“expertise in inequality and structural racism,”
So, they’re hiring White People, right? Specifically White, Male, Christians?
Because, according to CRT, they have the most expertise in those things, right?
“most colleges are spending way too much money on DEI efforts.”
But the Political Officers need to get paid somehow.
It’s depressing that a once fine academic, free-thinking institution has joined up with the Ministry of Truth and Ministry of Love.
“Make Orwell Fiction Again”
The DEI “profession” is high priced quackery, just like phrenology (a quack “science” that was once used to “prove” Black people were racially inferior to Caucasians). People now get paid six figures to spew quackery like “intersectionality” and even make their own employers like Stanford University the subject of EEOC complaints for hostile work environments.
Here’s everything you need to know about DEI in one sentence: “Don’t treat somebody differently (better or worse) than others because of his/her race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual preference.” The instant you segregate people by race for “DEI training,” you’ve just created a hostile work or educational environment. The instant you ascribe an assumed characteristic to somebody because of his/her race (“privileged,” “racist,” or “disadvantaged”) you’ve just created a hostile work environment. The instant you tell a Caucasian he or she is inherently racist, YOU have just made a racist statement.
Any tuition money spent on this quackery is money down the drain.
So they hired 5 new racists, PhD-level racists, to educate the future racists of America in racism even better.
Great.
Obviously, society need to better think through these issues. When I was in law school, I was taught that remedies would only be in order after a court found that they were necessary to remedy prior discrimination. This point has been lost, and we will see in the Supreme Court will give the idea new vitality in the Harvard and North Carolina cases.