Student government nominee disqualified from "diversity" position for being straight, white, and male

Submitted by Mastodon on Tue, 2013-05-21 23:57

Story here. Excerpt:

'A student’s bid to become associate vice president of diversity and inclusion at Northwestern University was derailed last Wednesday over accusations that his status as a white heterosexual male would make it impossible for him to perform the position’s duties.

Piotrkowski reportedly attempted to appeal to the Student Senate on the grounds that he identifies as a religious minority and has a lesbian sister, but it was to no avail.
...
Ian Coley, a student on the Associate Student Government Diversity and Inclusion Committee, later said white heterosexual males are not qualified to hold the position of associate vice president of diversity and inclusion.

“This university is not ready, in any capacity, for a heterosexual white male to be in charge in any way of diversity and inclusion,” said Coley, according to the Daily Northwestern.

“I don’t know if any university is,” he reportedly added.

However, Hayley Stevens, the outgoing associate vice president of diversity and inclusion told the Daily Northwestern she supported Piotrkowski’s nomination, adding, “he was our best candidate.”'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

It's not abt ideals, seeking justice, looking for the best-qualified anything for any position. It's about "identity politics". White, straight, male = BAD. Everyone else = GOOD. Doesn't matter if you yourself even buy into this nutty idea more than everyone else in the room. You're still the downpressorman who will, until he undergoes a full sex change operation or starts dating men (or both), be the EVIL WHITE PATRIARCH FROM HELL. You can either buy their line of crap and go around flagellating yourself all day, or get your head straight, realize what kind of f*cked-up trip they're laying on you, and live your life without them (and good riddance).

Choice is yours.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2013-05-22 00:45

Where I work, HR had quietly created a "Women's Forum", the sole requirement for joining being your gender. Care to guess which one was excluded? Well, they renamed it to the "Diversity and Inclusion Forum", and, supposedly, changed it's mission to be one of "inclusion of all our diverse employees".

Except, of course, "inclusion" has so far only applied to women, and, to a lesser extent, minorities. For instance, April was designated a month to "focus on, and celebrate, women".

When "diversity and inclusion" are part of an organization's title, you can bet it means that they will stand for neither. Sort of like "democratic republic" was always part of the name of a communist country.

If this guy was truly familiar with the work of this committee, he should not be surprised by their reaction to his candidacy.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by StayingFit on Wed, 2013-05-22 21:53

Remember "1984"? "The Ministry of Truth" is where the lies and propaganda were developed. The "Ministry of Love" is where they tortured people.

"The Committee on Diversity and Inclusion" will of course be neither. It's actually yet another "club" wherein, if you are a member, life's just a bit better for you, now isn't it?

They won't let "just anyone" onto "The Committee on Diversity and Inclusion". In fact, not just anyone can get invitations to the happy hours or receptions.

You have to be "special". At the very least, you have to be non-white-male-heterosexual... unless of course your title is "Director" or better. Then maybe, they will "include" you. But don't kid yourself. If you're a straight-white-male on "The Committee on Diversity and Inclusion", it's only just long enough to get you to sign your own death warrant.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2013-05-23 02:45