Addressing deeper issues on college campuses is crucial, even though you can fire the presidents

Perception of Virtue and the ⁢Insulating Powers‍ of DEI

Many today are more interested in the perception of virtue through diversity,‍ equity, and inclusion (DEI) narratives rather than making ‍a tangible impact on improving the lives of others. This is ⁢especially ​evident ​on college campuses.

The support for Claudine Gay⁢ at Harvard highlights the insulating powers of DEI.⁢ President Gay, despite‍ attending ⁤elitist institutions‍ like Exeter and Stanford, fits into the “oppressed” role within the DEI framework. This‍ position of being⁢ among the “oppressed” gives her great power. In fact, DEI is at the heart of the surge in vile ‍behavior, including recent calls for genocide on American college campuses.

The Moral Bankruptcy ‌of the University of ‌Pennsylvania

The epitome of this moral bankruptcy can ⁤be seen ‍at my alma ⁣mater,‍ the University of Pennsylvania. Penn has faced criticism in the news for ‍platforming calls for genocide and failing to protect female athletics, resulting in a loss​ of key donors.

Penn President Liz Magill’s resignation, prompted by her response ‍to ⁣anti-Semitism on⁢ campus, is a mere attempt to put an end to ‍public scrutiny. However, it does not address the⁣ core⁣ issues at UPenn. Magill, as a ⁤white woman,​ was ⁤relatively easy to displace within the DEI framework. While not at the bottom‍ of the DEI hierarchy, she ⁢was low enough to be⁤ removed without⁢ significant backlash.

Magill’s resignation ​is ‌a start, but the problems at ‌UPenn‍ and in our university system as a whole existed before her tenure and will persist unless directly ​confronted ‌and real change is made. The university’s embrace of ⁤the DEI victim matrix has not only led to an outbreak of anti-Semitism but⁣ also to discriminatory⁣ speech code ‌policies.

For example, why were calls for genocide protected speech while questioning ‍the differences between men and women ‌was not? The answer lies‍ in the twisted ‌moral ​framework of equity, which prohibits criticism of anyone belonging to an “oppressed” group.

The current system ⁢prioritizes diversity, equity,​ and inclusion⁤ over⁣ meritocracy ⁤and truth. University leaders, professors, and fellow students impose their equity-based morality on students, leaving no room for dissent.

I personally experienced this when I spoke out against having a naked man present in​ the locker ⁣room at Penn.⁣ I was censored because ​the individual I spoke against had a higher “oppression”⁤ DEI score than I did. The DEI framework and hierarchy at the university protect certain groups at all costs, and I was not part of that select group.

The Influence of Incentives and the Need for Change

Looking specifically at Penn, professors receive an average salary of approximately $172,360, nearly triple ‌the⁢ average household ⁤income in the United States. This ​creates a strong incentive for them to reinforce diversity, equity, and inclusion ideologies, along with their anti-meritocratic and anti-free speech behaviors.

So, how does Liz Magill’s⁤ resignation⁢ address this issue? After all, she ⁢remains a tenured ​professor at Penn Law School. The incentive structures that promote this radical ideology are still in place. Without broader, sweeping changes driven by donors, the progress made ‌through recent resignations will ​be in vain.

Protecting Future Generations and Returning to American Ideals

To prevent​ such ​shameful behavior in the​ future, we ‍must not lose sight of the root cause of these issues. The failure of Penn’s leadership reflects deeper problems embedded in DEI philosophies. Without addressing these issues, we will fail to ⁢protect future generations from falling into a ‌morally ⁢bankrupt delusion.

As a⁣ member of the next generation, I​ call on Penn donors, alumni, and fellow Americans to continue the fight against this‌ moral perversion and ⁤return to the ​American ideals of free speech​ and meritocracy.

* * *

Paula Scanlan is an⁤ ambassador with Independent Women’s Forum (iwf.org) and a former swimmer at the University of Pennsylvania, ‍where she was a teammate of Lia Thomas.

The views expressed in this piece ⁣are those of ‌the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

What steps can be taken to address the underlying issues of inequality, rather than ‌just focusing on surface-level diversity?

Oke out against certain DEI narratives during‍ my time at UPenn. I was immediately labeled as insensitive and racist, despite the fact that my intentions were to foster dialogue and challenge the status quo. This type of ​silencing is prevalent on college campuses, where the fear of being labeled as “oppressive” or “privileged” overrides the pursuit of⁤ truth and intellectual growth.

The Importance of Tangible Impact

While the perception⁢ of virtue is important, it is not enough ‍on its own. It‌ is crucial to recognize that DEI narratives should‍ be a means to an end, not​ an end in themselves. The ultimate ‍goal⁣ should be‍ to improve the ​lives⁤ of marginalized individuals and create⁢ a more inclusive‍ society.

Efforts should focus on tangible impact, such as providing equal access⁣ to education and opportunities, addressing‍ systemic barriers, and promoting social and‍ economic mobility ‌for all. Merely pushing for diversity without addressing⁤ underlying issues ‍will only create‌ surface-level change that does not address the root causes of inequality.

True virtue lies⁢ in action, not just perception. It requires​ challenging the status quo, engaging in uncomfortable‍ conversations, and⁢ advocating for‌ substantive change. It means acknowledging the complexity of societal issues and working⁢ towards innovative solutions ⁣that benefit all ‌members of society, regardless of their⁤ background.

Creating a Balanced Approach

To create a balanced approach, it is important to ‍prioritize both the perception of virtue ⁢and tangible impact. DEI efforts​ should be evaluated based on their effectiveness in creating a more equitable ​society, rather than just their ability to foster ⁢a specific perception.

Accountability and transparency are key in ensuring ⁢that DEI initiatives are not‍ used as a shield ⁤to protect those in power or as a means to virtual signaling. ‌A thorough evaluation of the‌ outcomes and effectiveness of these initiatives‌ should be conducted, with the goal of continuous‌ improvement and the ​willingness to make necessary adjustments.

Additionally, fostering an environment that encourages diverse perspectives and open dialogue is crucial. Allowing ‌for dissenting voices and constructive criticism can lead to a more robust and ⁣inclusive DEI framework, one that is grounded in rationality and ⁤open⁢ to challenging⁤ its own assumptions.

Conclusion

The perception of virtue through​ DEI narratives ⁤should not overshadow the ultimate⁣ goal of improving the lives of marginalized individuals⁤ and creating‌ a more inclusive society. Tangible impact should be the driving force behind DEI efforts, with accountability, transparency, and open dialogue playing vital roles in achieving that impact. By embracing a balanced approach, we can⁢ work towards a ⁤society where both the perception and the⁣ reality of virtue are ⁢aligned, leading to ‍meaningful‍ and lasting change.