You'll have to explain to me how when quoting the article (which quotes the video), I read into it something that was "not there." What I posted was was entirely accurate - factually they juxtaposed a diversity issue with a press release/article touting a balanced budget. My original post (not a rant) said I found that odd both because it was a non-sequitur and the claim of a lack of diversity is questionable on the merits. You don't refute or address any of what is in my original post..GMP said:That's what I figured - at least you're honest. And no, it's not misleading. And yes, it's your fault - you read into it something that was not there, then went on a rant about it. That's your bad.BearGoggles said:I read the press release- didn't watch the video.GMP said:BearGoggles said:The goal of balancing the budget and raising capital funds is unrelated to the goal of promoting ethnic diversity. That is why it is bizarre. This is virtue signaling and pandering.Gunga la Gunga said:
As a well off white male, with well off white children, I can say unequivocally (for me and my kids) that the scales are tilted dramatically in our direction. It takes money to balance those scales.
It's a basic economic argument. If the market doesn't work efficiently, it takes money to make it work.
I don't find Chitst's juxtaposition bizarre, rather pragmatic.
The fact that Cal is not (in the view of some) sufficiently diverse is not an indication of market failure for admissions (it arguably could be for faculty). The market (admissions standards) works as it is intended - particularly in light of Prop 209 which requires that the "market" for admissions not take into account ethnic/racial/gender.
Throwing money at diversity initiatives has virtually nothing to do with balancing the budget or raising funds. It might be a worthwhile thing to do depending on how you define and value diversity.
Honest question, because I'm not going to watch the entire 42 minute video: Did you watch the video? Does she really connect these two issues? I see that they are back to back in an article summarizing a 42 minute discussion. It's not clear to me that she actually connected them as you suggest. If you did watch it, can you direct me to the point in he video where this occurs? If you didn't watch the video, I'd suggest that you should ensure she really did connect them before ranting about virtue signaling.
Edit: Because the way this article (not a press release as I believe you termed it) reads to me, she had what looks like a State of the Campus address, and she discussed a number of topics, including the fact the budget is balanced and including her goal to increase student body diversity. It doesn't read to me like she connected it.
And in my view, it is a press release, not an article. It is posted on the official Cal website written by an employee of UC Berkeley. That is a press release. If its misleading, I blame Cal.
As an aside, a mature adult would have realized their mistake once it was pointed it out and owned up to the fact they jumped to conclusions. You should try that next time.
The biggest irony here is that you're criticizing me for not watching a 42 minute video (and instead quoting the article). By your own admission, you haven't watched the video either and you (like me) are relying on your reading of the article..
If you were a mature adult, you wouldn't criticize people for things they didn't write/say (I was commenting on the press release, not the video), would offer an explanation of your thinking as to why what was posted from the press release is factually wrong (it doesn't cut it to say "you should watch the video"), and you wouldn't be a hypocrite in not watching the video yourself. In other words, make a real argument. You should try that next time.