Queensland University of Technology defends removing 'merit' from hiring policy

[tggzzz]

I always wonder how this extremely small amout of people who are pushing this genderism could get so much influence.

There was a significant problem and it required the Womens' Lib movement to focus attention on the problem and get some laws introduced. Good; that attention and those laws improved society. Most (young) people could identify with the problems, and appreciated the changes. The people that had fought that fight were justifiably lionised, and that lead to them finding themselves in postitions of influence.

Some people in the Womens' Lib movement had hitched their career and/or sense of value/purpose to the struggle. When the major problems had been addressed, they had to either retire and enjoy their success, or find new problems to fight against. Those problems have to be, by definition, less severe than the original problems.

The young people assumed without thinking that the reinvented fighters' cause was just as serious as the original, so the fighters were given the benefit of the doubt.
The original fighters (who hadn't retired) were now in a postition to influence the future, and they used it.

Rinse and repeat that a few times, and the remaining problems are much less significant than the original problems.  The new fighters have to become more extreme to get people to pay attention.

The same is true of the homosexual community.

There's an interesting 1990 book, "No More Sex War" by Neil Lyndon. In it he used the same debating tactics that the remaining feminists used against the patriachy. The feminists howled loudly, presumably not seeing the irony. It made Neil Lyndon almost unemployable.

Interesting question from that book: "what's the age that a UK resident is most likely to be a homicide victim?". Most people would guess teens or 16-24. Wrong. The most dangerous age was (is?) under 1 year old, and 55% of the perps were (are?) women - their mothers. Of course it isn't classed as murder, but as infanticide, so the naive statistics don't reflect the question.

[coppice]

I always wonder how this extremely small amout of people who are pushing this genderism could get so much influence.

There was a significant problem and it required the Womens' Lib movement to focus attention on the problem and get some laws introduced. Good; that attention and those laws improved society. Most (young) people could identify with the problems, and appreciated the changes. The people that had fought that fight were justifiably lionised, and that lead to them finding themselves in postitions of influence.

Some people in the Womens' Lib movement had hitched their career and/or sense of value/purpose to the struggle. When the major problems had been addressed, they had to either retire and enjoy their success, or find new problems to fight against. Those problems have to be, by definition, less severe than the original problems.

The young people assumed without thinking that the reinvented fighters' cause was just as serious as the original, so the fighters were given the benefit of the doubt.
The original fighters (who hadn't retired) were now in a postition to influence the future, and they used it.

Rinse and repeat that a few times, and the remaining problems are much less significant than the original problems.  The new fighters have to become more extreme to get people to pay attention.

The same is true of the homosexual community.

There's an interesting 1990 book, "No More Sex War" by Neil Lyndon. In it he used the same debating tactics that the remaining feminists used against the patriachy. The feminists howled loudly, presumably not seeing the irony. It made Neil Lyndon almost unemployable.

Interesting question from that book: "what's the age that a UK resident is most likely to be a homicide victim?". Most people would guess teens or 16-24. Wrong. The most dangerous age was (is?) under 1 year old, and 55% of the perps were (are?) women - their mothers. Of course it isn't classed as murder, but as infanticide, so the naive statistics don't reflect the question.

The real problem is this. If there is something meaningful people agree needs changing, and they can make it happen fast, all is good. If they take enough time that people get careers invested in the cause, they will never stop. If its something like an endangered animal, and they get it back to a safe position, they might move on to some other animal and do good work saving that. If there's no clear new path to persue they won't disband and ruin their pension plans. They'll do anything to keep the cause going, usually into strange territory.

Or,more succinctly: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” ― Eric Hoffer, The Temper of Our Time

[Gregg]

This is where many educational administrators are going:

[MrMobodies]

Queensland University of Technology's vice-chancellor has defended the decision to remove all references to "merit" from its hiring policy.
Staff were told about the move via an internal email, which informed them that they would be moving away from "the merit principle" towards a "more inclusive suitability assessment".
Vice-chancellor Margaret Sheil told ABC Radio Brisbane the * suitability assessment would consider factors such as gender and ethnic backgrounds.

Professor Sheil said it would also consider the current demographic breakdown of their various schools and disciplines.

She said women, for example, were under-represented in science and engineering at QUT whereas men were under-represented in teaching and nursing.

So what are they going to do, make it unfair on the male gender who want to study or rubbish their marks for a women there who happened to do the same amount and quality of work?

Where identity politics is involved, I'll bet that there is a policy about LGBTQGHXK. In that case all the men have to do is state that they "identify as female". If enough do it, maybe some of the women will be ejected to ensure balance or be forced to "identify as men".

So that's what this thing is called "identity politics".

It reminds me a bit like this article:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/red-alert-politics/teacher-bans-boys-playing-legos-gender-equality

Teacher bans boys from playing with legos because of 'gender equality'
by Ryan Girdusky  November 23, 2015 01:40 PM

Teacher: 'no legos' for boys for 'gender equality'

According to the Bainbridge Island Review, a kindergarten teacher restricted boys from playing with legos in order to institute more "gender equality." “I always tell the boys, ‘You’re going to have a turn’ — and I’m like, ‘Yeah, when hell freezes over’ in my head. I tell them, ‘You’ll have a turn’ because I don’t want them to feel bad,” said kindergarten teacher Karen Keller to the Bainbridge Island Review.

Keller has been a teacher at Captain Johnston Blakely Elementary since 2008 and realized that girls often times would play with dolls and crayons, while boys would play with blocks. This seemed to happen naturally, as if science and biology dictated what appealed to boys and girls. Societal norms, like girls playing with dolls over blocks, is what Kellar blames for the disparity between men and women in the science, technology, engineering, and math fields.

Being an active social justice warrior, Keller couldn't have the girls playing with that failed to develop perseverance, she had to act. After all children that play with blocks are more likely to better develop spacial and math skills. Keller appealed to the Bainbridge Schools Foundation to receive a grant for more blocks, only they would be for girls only.

The Washington Examiner reported that during the first month of children's time in kindergarten, Keller would ban boys from playing with the new LEGO Education Community Starter Kits. It's sad that the only way Keller a way to encourage "equality" was segregate the sexes and bring boys down. Despite concern from parents Blakely Elementary's principal, Reese Ande said the school does not "promote access or opportunity through any forms of exclusion." Ande also said that Keller is "a passionate teacher who cares deeply for each and every one of her students

So if the girls don't have an interest in a particular subject rather than try to make it more appealing or provide more stuff and resources if they are short to encourage more, don't do anything but restrict access to the boys to make it looks like it is equal.

[magic]

So if the girls don't have an interest in a particular subject rather than try to make it more appealing or provide more stuff and resources if they are short to encourage more, don't do anything but restrict access to the boys to make it looks like it is equal.

Crippling girls is just as harmful as crippling boys.

What would be the use of luring them away from their dolls and turning them into socially inept nerds?

[SiliconWizard]

The goal of this whole crap is to make the west, as we know it, commit suicide. I'm not kidding, it's not just speculation. But it's a question for another time and place I guess.
The ultimate reason, though, is still unclear, and most likely multiple. There isn't just one motive to it, I think there are several, they just happen to agree on the milestone.

[MrMobodies]

That was a funky period in British politics. The tripartite school system (actually just two levels in most of the country) was pushed by people on the left. It allowed working class kids in state schools to compete on fairly equal terms with wealthy kids going to expensive public schools, so it seemed like something the left should be behind. Before it was effectively rolled out across the whole of the UK fashion changed, and the left was suddenly in favour of scrapping the system, and having a single level of "comprehensive schools", which are a kind of "most children left behind" scheme .

I know of a maths teacher who I was still in contact that use to keep the students behind at the end of the day if he felt they were not doing well enough to help whatever problems they may have or what they don't grasp.

In 2016 he was told he was no longer allowed to this anymore and if they fall behind demote them to a lower class. He refused saying that no one tells me how teach I had been doing this job for 40 years and my teaching method ensure they are successful in passing.

Instead he decide to retire at the end of the year as he was of age and to teach privately. He said to me before he retired about the amount of paperwork they were getting him to do over the years which had nothing to do with teaching that he struggling with to find the time where he had to leave later in the evenings and then he spoke something to do with red tape being applied to things.

He said he had been teaching for 40 years and that they made him feel like he was no longer an expert anymore with them telling him how he should teach despite the high pass rate of his classes.

I just remembered something he told from last decade where the boys were quite most of the time but quite of few of the girls use to talk to one another during the lesson and not pay attention to him and the board so he had to plan where they were going to sit and every now again he'd shuffled them around and they'd be fine for a couple of weeks.

That suited the rich, as it reduced competition with their kids, so they let the change occur. No conspiracy, just everyone powerful pushing in the same direction with different goals.p.

That make sense to me where some places underarchieve and run the lowest and limited set of choices. Also my tutor above said to me "they make things so much more difficult than they need to be that he wouldn't be able to study to become a maths teacher in this day and age,

There was a thing in the news in 2010 on state schools running a restricted set of subjects and  many that were blacklisted by universities.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/aug/20/a-level-subjects-blacklist-claim

A-level results: Top universities secretly list 'banned' subjects – teachers
This article is more than 13 years old
Blacklist said to contain non-traditional A-level subjects mainly offered by comprehensives rather than private schools

Oxford is one of the elite universities accused of operating a subjects blacklist. Photograph: Oli
A-levels

A-level results: Top universities secretly list 'banned' subjects – teachers Blacklist said to contain non-traditional A-level subjects mainly offered by comprehensives rather than private schools
Jessica Shepherd, education correspondent
Fri 20 Aug 2010 21.30 BST
The country's top universities have been called on to come clean about an unofficial list or lists of "banned" A-level subjects that may have prevented tens of thousands of state school pupils getting on to degree courses.

Teachers suspect the Russell Group of universities – which includes Oxford and Cambridge – of rejecting outright pupils who take A-level subjects that appear on the unpublished lists.

The lists are said to contain subjects such as law, art and design, business studies, drama and theatre studies – non-traditional A-level subjects predominantly offered by comprehensives, rather than private schools.

The London School of Economics is thought to be the only top university to publish its own list of "non-preferred" subjects. Cambridge University did so until last year.

Teachers accused universities of putting comprehensive pupils at a disadvantage by refusing to publish their lists. Some claimed the lists were a filter that enabled the most prestigious universities to accept more private school pupils than state-educated ones.

Already private school pupils dominate entry to top universities and could do so more in future. A-level results published on Thursday showed that selective private schools continue to outperform comprehensives in terms of A and A* grades.

Private school pupils are three times more likely to score the highest grade than comprehensive pupils, achieving 30% of the total number of A* grades when their pupils accounted for just 14% of entries. Comprehensive schools achieve 30% of the A* grades on 43% of entries.

But even the brightest state school pupils, with a string of As and A*s, stand little chance of a place at a top university this year if they have taken one or more of the A-level subjects on the unofficial lists, the teachers said.

These students will join this year's unprecedented scramble for university places. An estimated 180,000 students are predicted to be turned away from every degree course starting this autumn because of record numbers of applications.

John Bangs, former head of education at the National Union of Teachers, said he strongly suspected that there was a single unofficial list of banned subjects. "The list is built on the assumption that these subjects are easier than others and not academic enough," he said. "This is just another sign of the Russell Group using a filter to stop people they don't want from getting into their universities. They have no concern about fairness. They should be far more transparent. If they have this list, let them publish it and show us the evidence that these subjects are easier."

Andy Gardner, of the Institute of Career Guidance, said he had confronted Russell Group universities about the alleged list in the past. "I think there is certainly an element of there being subjects that [the Russell Group] doesn't rate," Gardner, who advises state school pupils on their university choices, said. "Children in state schools are disadvantaged by this."

Mike Griffiths, headteacher of Northampton School for Boys and a council member of the Association of School and College Leaders, said he suspected universities of rejecting students who did drama A-level in particular. One of his pupils has three A*s but no place at university and he believes this may be because he took drama. "Universities need to be more honest about what criteria they are using [to select pupils]," he said. "I don't have a problem with universities having subjects that they consider to be less helpful, but they need to be upfront about it."

Geoff Lucas, secretary of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference, which represents headteachers of 250 independent schools, said universities must "come clean if there were unwritten rules" about so-called banned subjects. State school pupils were more likely to choose a subject in the unofficial list because independent schools mainly offer traditional subjects, Lucas said. "Students have the absolute right to see this list."

Wendy Piatt, director general of the Russell Group, said no Russell Group university barred any A-level subject.

"University websites typically include details on 'essential' and 'preferred' A-levels to help students maximise their chances of gaining entry to competitive degree courses," she said. "Most provide very clear and comprehensive information on required A-level subjects and which ones will not be considered when making admissions decisions. Students would be well advised to take very careful note of such requirements."

This week's A-level results showed that pupils were increasingly shunning so-called "soft" subjects in favour of science, economics and maths.

Similar happening to the NHS with longer waiting lists and encouragement towards private care to get seen to sooner.

I remembered back in 2001, some years after Tony Blair brought out the tuition fee's and my school which had an agreement with a local university to help people like me but the fee's applied so they couldn't afford to send us and they scrapped the program before we even started. I went to many different colleges in the area which were running the courses I want to do but I was told they were not doing them next year and to apply to university to do it and they are now switching to these things called NVQ's that were we offered the year before instead of the GCSE's if the students didn't present enough work for it.

I sensed a watering down of things from that point onwards.

[Nominal Animal]

Western universities no longer exist for education and research, but for indoctrination and socio-cultural control.

The saddest part in this is that those driving this, truly and utterly believe this is for the good.  They are incapable of rational logic, and no amount of argument or proof will change their beliefs.

If those people live long enough to see the destruction their actions lead to, they will reject all blame by either claiming that their opponents are the reason their policies lead to destruction, or (in the absence of opponents) that nobody could have foreseen their policies would lead to such destruction.

There is no conspiracy, just irrational beliefs, ineptitude, and stupidity.

[CatalinaWOW]

Western universities no longer exist for education and research, but for indoctrination and socio-cultural control.

The saddest part in this is that those driving this, truly and utterly believe this is for the good.  They are incapable of rational logic, and no amount of argument or proof will change their beliefs.

If those people live long enough to see the destruction their actions lead to, they will reject all blame by either claiming that their opponents are the reason their policies lead to destruction, or (in the absence of opponents) that nobody could have foreseen their policies would lead to such destruction.

There is no conspiracy, just irrational beliefs, ineptitude, and stupidity.

Another outcome that is better for the rest of us, but similar for those driving this is that the bulk of society merely ignores the institutions involved in this, and that the real research and teaching universities return to the their roots.  The other unis would gradually die from lack of funding and recruits.  The excuses for what happened would be identical to your scenario.

I actually have some hope that this scenario will happen.   Not confidence.  Hope.

[magic]

The goal of this whole crap is to make the west, as we know it, commit suicide. I'm not kidding, it's not just speculation.

I hope that no one will miss "the west as we know it" today

Feminism was all fun when it was brainwashing girls to be like boys, but now that those brainwashed girls brainwash boys to be like girls suddenly it's a problem for men?
Gender theory was all fun when it was about pushing women into men's "spaces", but now that men want into women's "spaces" suddenly it's a problem for feminists?

I call it justice being served and I watch western news like a comedy they are. Speaking of which, here's another one from 40 years ago.
The action is set in 2044, so "the west" still has a few years left to meet the time frame...



Context: men have wiped themselves out in a world war and these were the last left, plus the leader of this feminist organization who of course was a disguised man too

[Neutrion]

What would bot farms change?


2. stupidity and indoctrination of the general population to be "kind" and "understanding", largely a work done by earlier SJW movements

You rather don't want to live in a country where there is no kindness and understanding for eachoter.
That is not the problem but the hijacking of this idea by actually very unkind people who are very agressively attacking people who are not sharing their ideology.

Botfarms:
When I read the news about Rowling, I remember a "big furore". But these mostly happen in the internet, and some people and politicians may think that this is actually some kind of major amount of .people

I always wonder how this extremely small amout of people who are pushing this genderism could get so much influence.

There was a significant problem and it required the Womens' Lib movement to focus attention on the problem and get some laws introduced. Good; that attention and those laws improved society. Most (young) people could identify with the problems, and appreciated the changes. The people that had fought that fight were justifiably lionised, and that lead to them finding themselves in postitions of influence.

Some people in the Womens' Lib movement had hitched their career and/or sense of value/purpose to the struggle. When the major problems had been addressed, they had to either retire and enjoy their success, or find new problems to fight against. Those problems have to be, by definition, less severe than the original problems.

The young people assumed without thinking that the reinvented fighters' cause was just as serious as the original, so the fighters were given the benefit of the doubt.
The original fighters (who hadn't retired) were now in a postition to influence the future, and they used it.

Rinse and repeat that a few times, and the remaining problems are much less significant than the original problems.  The new fighters have to become more extreme to get people to pay attention.

The same is true of the homosexual community.

There's an interesting 1990 book, "No More Sex War" by Neil Lyndon. In it he used the same debating tactics that the remaining feminists used against the patriachy. The feminists howled loudly, presumably not seeing the irony. It made Neil Lyndon almost unemployable.

Interesting question from that book: "what's the age that a UK resident is most likely to be a homicide victim?". Most people would guess teens or 16-24. Wrong. The most dangerous age was (is?) under 1 year old, and 55% of the perps were (are?) women - their mothers. Of course it isn't classed as murder, but as infanticide, so the naive statistics don't reflect the question.

The real problem is this. If there is something meaningful people agree needs changing, and they can make it happen fast, all is good. If they take enough time that people get careers invested in the cause, they will never stop. If its something like an endangered animal, and they get it back to a safe position, they might move on to some other animal and do good work saving that. If there's no clear new path to persue they won't disband and ruin their pension plans. They'll do anything to keep the cause going, usually into strange territory.

Or,more succinctly: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” ― Eric Hoffer, The Temper of Our Time

I always wonder how this extremely small amout of people who are pushing this genderism could get so much influence.

There was a significant problem and it required the Womens' Lib movement to focus attention on the problem and get some laws introduced. Good; that attention and those laws improved society. Most (young) people could identify with the problems, and appreciated the changes. The people that had fought that fight were justifiably lionised, and that lead to them finding themselves in postitions of influence.

Some people in the Womens' Lib movement had hitched their career and/or sense of value/purpose to the struggle. When the major problems had been addressed, they had to either retire and enjoy their success, or find new problems to fight against. Those problems have to be, by definition, less severe than the original problems.

The young people assumed without thinking that the reinvented fighters' cause was just as serious as the original, so the fighters were given the benefit of the doubt.
The original fighters (who hadn't retired) were now in a postition to influence the future, and they used it.

Rinse and repeat that a few times, and the remaining problems are much less significant than the original problems.  The new fighters have to become more extreme to get people to pay attention.

The same is true of the homosexual community.

There's an interesting 1990 book, "No More Sex War" by Neil Lyndon. In it he used the same debating tactics that the remaining feminists used against the patriachy. The feminists howled loudly, presumably not seeing the irony. It made Neil Lyndon almost unemployable.

Interesting question from that book: "what's the age that a UK resident is most likely to be a homicide victim?". Most people would guess teens or 16-24. Wrong. The most dangerous age was (is?) under 1 year old, and 55% of the perps were (are?) women - their mothers. Of course it isn't classed as murder, but as infanticide, so the naive statistics don't reflect the question.

Reasonable explanation, seems plausible. But it also needs a lot of young followers. Who are not just stupid but have a lack of respect for others. And politicians who get the feeling that they represent the majority. But whenever there is any  voting on these issues, or somehow connected to them we find that the majority is not at all behind these ideas. But because people are not allowed to vote direcly on issues, this is a very slow ind indirect reflection.

The goal of this whole crap is to make the west, as we know it, commit suicide. I'm not kidding, it's not just speculation.

I hope that no one will miss "the west as we know it" today

Feminism was all fun when it was brainwashing girls to be like boys, but now that those brainwashed girls brainwash boys to be like girls suddenly it's a problem for men?
Gender theory was all fun when it was about pushing women into men's "spaces", but now that men want into women's "spaces" suddenly it's a problem for feminists?

I call it justice being served and I watch western news like a comedy they are. Speaking of which, here's another one from 40 years ago.
The action is set in 2044, so "the west" still has a few years left to meet the time frame...



Context: men have wiped themselves out in a world war and these were the last left, plus the leader of this feminist organization who of course was a disguised man too

The "WEST". Well so far people from the east are moving to the west, so if it would be so bad it would be the other way around. The average happyness index is generally still better in the west despite all this bullshit. Not many americans or Germans are fleeing to Russia, or Hungary to have a better life.

You probably also would not like to live in China or Russia. So if you have a look at all statistics the west is still a better place to live. And if people wake up and talk about these issues they can change the situation. In Russia you go to prison, or just die in some accident or by high speed lead flying around.
And China became a totalitarian digital prison.
And of course you don't hear about similarly bad trends in the east in the state media. (At least in the hungarian) Read watch some different news channels as well, which are sometimes focusing on our problems.

[DimitriP]

The saddest part in this is that those driving this, truly and utterly believe this is for the good.  They are incapable of rational logic, and no amount of argument or proof will change their beliefs

The best puppet is the one that doesn't know it has strings attached to it.

[HalFET]

Fun fact: These sort of policies are the reason behind some of the biggest oafs I know becoming tenured professors and several skilled highly-motivated people burning out and working 9 to 5 designing lighting armatures instead of doing teaching and research.

[RJSV]

   Yes, I can see the point,...in isolation of all other dynamics you certainly COULD state that a bias or (how did she put it) recognize that, for instance, a male bias in engineering dept. seems to occur...HOWEVER;
   However; this little isolated dynamic is stated in EXCLUSION OF the myrid of other effects and outcomes happening, in the complex University hiring process.

   'Cant be color-blind'...Isn't that code talk for admitting RACISM ?

[coppice]

   Yes, I can see the point,...in isolation of all other dynamics you certainly COULD state that a bias or (how did she put it) recognize that, for instance, a male bias in engineering dept. seems to occur...HOWEVER;
   However; this little isolated dynamic is stated in EXCLUSION OF the myrid of other effects and outcomes happening, in the complex University hiring process.

   'Cant be color-blind'...Isn't that code talk for admitting RACISM ?

Racism, anti-semitism, all the old vices are back in fashion right now.

[tszaboo]

Racism, anti-semitism, all the old vices are back in fashion right now.

Oh, but can't you see that they are actually the anti-racist, and the good guys people?
And it isn't anti-semitism, they only seek to destroys the only democratic country in the middle east, and only to get rid of all the occupiers there?

Isn't that code talk for admitting RACISM ?

If you are not saying what they want you to say then you are racist or -phobe. So might as well stop caring what they call you for giving your opinion. Gloves are off.

[Gregg]

Academia and a myriad of do-gooders have been fighting racism with more racism for over 60 years and all it has done is foster even more racism. 

[RJSV]

   My head hurts, watching this unfold...
OR my ass.

   My head and my ass.

[Zero999]

The war on "merit" is not too surprising, even if it's just one angle of attack here among many. The "woke" movement is some kind of (at least in inspiration) neo-marxist movement and for neo-marxists, merit is one of the values to destroy.

American food isn't real food.
American boobs aren't real boobs.
American marxists aren't real marxists

AFAIK actual commies never used gender or ethnic quotas and were opposed to feminism and other identity politics. Their position was that people are equal and any differences that may be observed today are caused by social dynamics of power and money, which dynamics communism claimed to eliminate.

That's the premise of critical social justice, which borrows heavily from Marxism. The root of all Marxist doctrine is idea that all folk are innately equal and any inequalities are due social dynamics. Critical race theory, feminism and queer theory all revolve around the idea of minorities being oppressed, by a systemically oppressive society: whiteness, heteronormative, patriarchy etc.

Infamous kleptocracy aside, hiring decisions were officially to be based on suitability for the job. As they had to be, for communism to have any chance of progressing and fighting the global evil of capitalism and imperialism.

Anti-merit is an American movement trying to explain inconvenient statistics for disgruntled liberals who realized that decades of state-level cult of liberalism and elimination of every form of genuine systemic inequality still didn't make the statistics go away completely, as their religion appeared to promise. It's also backed by the American conviction that they are at the top of the global food chain and will stay there forever no matter how hard they shoot their foot. Americans would make actual idealistic communists cringe.

It's socialism, but of a different flavour to that of the old USSR. The idea is to use social engineering to ensure everyone is equal, rather than taking over the means of production. It's the same goal, just by a different means.

[coppice]

Academia and a myriad of do-gooders have been fighting racism with more racism for over 60 years and all it has done is foster even more racism. 

Outside their own little bubble it really hasn't. Any meaningful measure of racism in western democracies has shown a massive reduction in the last half century. This really pisses off anyone who makes a living from the idea its still a huge issue, and in the last few years they've managed to get some traction. I doubt its going to last.

[tggzzz]

Academia and a myriad of do-gooders have been fighting racism with more racism for over 60 years and all it has done is foster even more racism. 

Outside their own little bubble it really hasn't. Any meaningful measure of racism in western democracies has shown a massive reduction in the last half century. This really pisses off anyone who makes a living from the idea its still a huge issue, and in the last few years they've managed to get some traction. I doubt its going to last.

Follow the money and social standing. It worries anybody who's income or importance depends on it being a huge issue.

[RJSV]

   But, but, but;  What about MEDICAL Degrees and certifications ?
   Oh wait, that's not medical STUDENTS, that can evade some merit requirements,...only the professors, right ?

   Oh, wait...student merit requirements should then, naturally, also fall...right ?
Maybe, that happened, already.

   (Knock on wood), If I end up in emergency room, gazing up at ER people, We don't want thems people to all look the same.
   ??

[coppice]

   (Knock on wood), If I end up in emergency room, gazing up at ER people, We don't want thems people to all look the same.

If I wake up in an ER room I do want the people to all look the same. Calm. In control. Well prepared. Knowledgable, Thorough. Are there any other qualities in a person's demeanour that might matter?

[tggzzz]

   (Knock on wood), If I end up in emergency room, gazing up at ER people, We don't want thems people to all look the same.

If I wake up in an ER room I do want the people to all look the same. Calm. In control. Well prepared. Knowledgable, Thorough. Are there any other qualities in a person's demeanour that might matter?

Open and honest about what they don't know. I hate bullshitters, and tend to trust someone after they have told me what they do and don't know.

Fortunately medicine is so much better nowadays that there is less need for the patient to only have faith the doctor will cure them.

[coppice]

   (Knock on wood), If I end up in emergency room, gazing up at ER people, We don't want thems people to all look the same.

If I wake up in an ER room I do want the people to all look the same. Calm. In control. Well prepared. Knowledgable, Thorough. Are there any other qualities in a person's demeanour that might matter?

Open and honest about what they don't know. I hate bullshitters, and tend to trust someone after they have told me what they do and don't know.

Fortunately medicine is so much better nowadays that there is less need for the patient to only have faith the doctor will cure them.

Its interesting visiting a doctor, being asked your profession, and replying engineer. Usually, their faces light up. Here's someone with a STEM education and an analytical mind. They can have a meaningful conversation about what's wrong, and what can be done about it. This is clearly not the kind of interaction they have with most patients, and most medical people seem to appreciate the opportunity.