Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Eyes! Get your free eyes right here!
Haha, you're an idiot. And a loser, I might add. Eligio Martinez, USAC academic affairs commissioner, (I think that's the UCLA equivalent of our Academic Affairs Veep) blames the failure of the diversity requirement on those racist conservative faculty.
I just think the faculty here is resistant to having a diversity requirement, and I think that shows what their views are, and what they think education, and the value of education, is and should be.
Uh, yeah. They seem to be of the "education to be determined by students" opinion. What fools.
I think the reason this requirement was voted down, as was the first requirement, comes down to racism. The faculty doesn't want it, the faculty doesn't value diversity. They don't want diversity in this population. To me it's racism, period. This is a proposal students have been working on for over 17 years.
That makes sense. Since students have been working on it for so long, for the faculty to oppose it is racist. Or... uh... You know, sometimes it's nice to justify your wild accusations of racism.
DB: How would you respond to faculty members who are concerned the requirement could impede their academic freedom?
EM: That's a contradiction. I think the faculty members that are saying that are the conservative faculty members that want to impose what they consider vital education onto us. And, as students, this is a liberal arts institution. UCLA has been the center of a lot of activism, a lot of politics – students have fought to create ethnic studies, students have fought to create departments on this campus. For them to say that it's impeding their academic freedom, that's ridiculous. By not implementing the requirement they're violating someone else's freedom of expression – like our studies, like ethnic studies, women's studies or LGBT studies.
Oh, damn, that's hilarious. Read that last sentence: "By not implementing the requirement, they're violating someone else's freedom of expression." Did it occur to you that by implementing the requirement, you're violating someone else's freedom of expression? Or does that require you think about the possibility other people disagree with you, which is apparently too much for you?
Note that he's concerned that the faculty members are trying to impose what they consider vital education upon him. But it doesn't at all occur to him that maybe he's also trying to impose what he considers vital education upon everyone else. That's some high quality thinking. How about an "abstract thinking" requirement, where students are forced to consider these things?
"And, as students, this is a liberal arts institution." Parse that bad boy.
And for all the conservative faculty, it's really showed where they stand. To me it's sending a message because it's saying that students like me shouldn't be here, or that our histories, our cultures, are not important, they are not valuable, they are not good enough for everybody to learn about.
Hmm hmm hmm. Interesting. I kind of think higher level math is good enough for everyone to learn about. How about a higher level math requirement? What, you oppose that? Are you saying that math students shouldn't be there? That math isn't important, isn't valuable?
The sad part is that the UCLAers probably eat this nonsense up.
"Interview conducted by Colleen Honigsberg."
Now that's a name worth having.
. . .
|
. . .
|
