> "Diversity substantively means fewer whites and asians."
So here's what I fail to understand: why punish Asians? They (or perhaps I should say we) had nothing to do with the history of white vs black oppression in the United States. Many of us weren't even here until well after the civil rights movement of the '60s and '70s. This sort of "diversity" is basically progressives being willing to be racist to Asians to compensate blacks for the past injustices perpetrated by whites, which is basically robbing Peter to pay Paul any way you look at it.
So here's what I fail to understand: why punish Whites? The students had nothing to do with the history of white vs black oppression in the United States. None of them were even here until well after the civil rights movement of the '60s and '70s. This sort of "diversity" is basically progressives being willing to be racist to Whites to compensate blacks for the past injustices, which is basically robbing Peter to pay Paul any way you look at it.
If I wanted to take a critical view of your comment, you're basically saying "Sure, punish white people.. but how dare you punish Asians!"
The goal of any diversity program - ignoring whether or not that goal is good - is to increase representation among historically under-represented groups. At least as far as academics and education are concerned, Asians are objectively not under-represented. If you're looking at diversity programs in the urban United States, this translated pretty directly into "more black and brown kids."
It's hard to ride that line between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. But it seems to be that just saying "wow there's not enough black and brown kids in these classes, so we better cancel them rather than see what went wrong (or if anything actually went wrong)" is a pretty ass-backwards way to handle things.
Because Asians broadly speaking do not depend on favors from the ruling elite for their position, thus they are politically unreliable (although currently mostly aligned with them).
Because Asians perform better and that would contradict the narrative that without systemic racism the outcome would reflect the overall demographics of the population, so 50% men/women, 60% whites, 18% latinos, 13% blacks, 6% asians etc.
Because Asians blow up their entire "critical race theory". If racism is truly the cause of certain minorities poor outcomes, then why are Asian outcomes as good or better than whites?
So here's what I fail to understand: why punish Asians? They (or perhaps I should say we) had nothing to do with the history of white vs black oppression in the United States. Many of us weren't even here until well after the civil rights movement of the '60s and '70s. This sort of "diversity" is basically progressives being willing to be racist to Asians to compensate blacks for the past injustices perpetrated by whites, which is basically robbing Peter to pay Paul any way you look at it.