In the Seahawk ?To the Editor? section, I read a letter entitled ?Get over it ? diversity is good for you.? The testy (not to mention condescending) author of the letter was responding to another letter writer who opposed lower admission standards as a means of increasing black enrollment.
The response said, in part, ?You assume we would have to lower UNCW's standards of academic excellence to allow a higher entry of minority students - insinuating that there aren't a large amount of minority students that meet the standard set at UNCW.?
Re-read that statement and think about it for a moment. A student defending our diversity program, which already uses lower admissions standards for minorities, is saying; 1) we don?t have to lower academic standards to allow more minority students, and 2) there are already large numbers of minority students that meet university standards.
This kind of logic often appears when white liberals try to help minorities. They know that every time the ?help? takes the form of lowering standards, they are contributing to negative stereotypes of the group they claim to assist. That makes them feel bad, so they remind us that their ideas are not really necessary. They are just ?good for us all.?
The author of this particular letter, a social work student (that?s a shocker!), says it this way: ?Your mom used to make you eat your vegetables. No, you didn't like it, and it wasn't comfortable. She did it because she knows vegetables are good for you. So, UNCW is forcing you to expose yourself to new cultures. No, it's not comfortable at first, but in the long run: It's good for you!?
In case you don?t understand diversity-speak, here?s the English translation: ?I believe in equality of people and equality of cultures and I know the best way to promote it because I am smarter than you. In fact, I am your mommy. If you don?t agree with me (and eat your diversity vegetables) you will be sent to your room without any supper. Now shut up and go to your room! And celebrate diversity, damn you!?
Whenever I read such letters, I wonder how they make it into the campus paper. But then I read articles by the
According to the last Seahawk staff editorial, intolerance (the greatest of all evils) has ?reared its ugly head once again.? The alleged intolerants are a UNC-Chapel Hill Christian fraternity that just won a federal injunction against their university for de-recognizing them. Their crime was keeping non-Christians from being voting members and officers in their Christian club.
Even though the university engages in racial discrimination in both admissions and hiring, the Seahawk claims that there are ?no exceptions in discrimination.? That is to say, campus groups can never, under any circumstances, discriminate on the basis of anything. Not even beliefs.
So, according to the Seahawk staff, students who believe that rape and pedophilia are good must be allowed to join, vote, and hold office in a Christian fraternity. Remember: There are ?no exceptions in discrimination!? Translation: In our effort to promote tolerance, we will not tolerate any exceptions to our rules. And our rules indicate that, when it comes to beliefs, there can be no fixed rules.
The Seahawk also says that ?Acceptance is supposed to represent the central ideal of Christianity.? In other words, the greatest of all commandments (forget what Jesus said) is the commandment to adhere to moral relativism.
Of course, some Christians don?t accept that idea. But their lack of acceptance is simply unacceptable. Unless you share the belief that all beliefs are acceptable, you cannot be a recognized student club. Moral relativism is acceptable. Moral absolutism is not. This is an absolute rule.
The Seahawk also scoffs at the idea that the Christian Fraternity ?claims its right to the first amendment protects the organization?s stance on gay marriage and abstinence, among other sensitive issues.? The Seahawk, which urges tolerance of beliefs, just can?t tolerate these particular stances. I guess it all depends on what the definition of ?stance? is. If a stance is a stance and not a belief, maybe it doesn?t have to be accepted. I don?t know where I stand on this one. My head is still spinning.
The Seahawk also insists that ?Ethnocentrism has no place in a democratic nation, especially one as diverse and complex as the United States.? In other words, ethnocentrism is so bad, we cannot even consider it. That?s because everyone agrees that ethnocentrism is bad. It is an absolute. It is a truism.
But do these students actually accept all of this nonsense about the equality of all cultures, beliefs, and ideas? Would the students refrain from imposing their own anti-genocidal cultural values on Nazi Germany? Maybe saving Jews from mass genocide doesn?t feel as good as being tolerant and accepting of Nazi cultural traditions.
The Seahawk concludes its editorial with two interesting assertions. First, they say that ?Extremists are able to push their beliefs at an increasing number of venues previously closed to religious fanaticism.? They provide no example because their only purpose is to classify the Christian fraternity members as religious fanatics. Second, they say that ?There is a time and place for personal beliefs - just not in legislation and university policy.?
These students almost seem sincere in their belief that diversity proponents are keeping their personal beliefs out of university policy. And they seem to believe that they really don?t believe in anything. I don?t know which of these two beliefs is more pathetic. Maybe they?re equal.
Mike S. Adams recommends that all campus conservatives take some time to learn about the Collegiate Network (http://www.isi.org/cn/).