From the NY Times:
Officials of the University of California system have proposed asking
incoming freshmen to identify their sexual orientation, a move that
might cement such declarations as an emerging topic in the college
admissions process.
ABC News reports
that the Academic Senate of the University of California system
initiated the proposal to ensure that services are provided for lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender students.
Elmhurst College, in Illinois, announced last year
that it would ask students about their sexual orientation on its
admission application, making it the first college believed to make such
a move. Students who identified themselves as gay were eligible for a
diversity scholarship.
As one commenter wrote:
This is a further erosion of privacy and
an example of smug crusadership gone wrong. One’s sexual orientation
is no one else’s business, particularly as it is something that can
evolve with time and do so most notably during the college years. So,
as a first step, to place this on a college application is absurd as
well as abusive. The power inequality–well established institution
deciding upon admission vs. teenage applicant seeking admission–requires
no further elaboration. And, as a second step, if a student answers
one of these questions falsely for fear of downstream consequences, in
effect answering under duress (and it is nothing else), then the same
student could, theoretically, be pursued at some later point for “fraud”
by having put a false statement in writing and having obtained
something of value (either a college admission or some other college
benefit, e.g., in the not unthinkable instance in which a non-gay
student declared himself/herself gay in order to partake of “diversity”
handouts, leaving aside the much more important issue of privacy for
actually gay students who do not choose to make this part of their
personal lives part of a quasi-public record). There is a certain point
at which the declared desire to “do good” becomes indistinguishable
from perpetrating vicious evil. This application question has clearly
reached that point.
— Steve
— Steve
Detractors, including some sitting judges, believe the question is intrusive, explains the Los Angeles Times. Unlike race or sex, sexual and gender identity are private matters. Individuals can choose to divulge the information on their own terms.
Critics also suggest gender and sexual identity are immaterial.
Judicial appointments should be about competence, not filling a quota.
But can't the same argument be made about sex, race and ethnicity?
To this end, isn't asking California judges any question about their personal identity inappropriate?
Can these questions and remarks be rephrased to address what's occurring for college students having to proclaim their sexual identity?
Student achievement should be about competence, not filling a quota (or scholarship requirement).
To this end, isn't asking California students any question about their personal identity inappropriate?
Why do we allow an academic institution to ask questions that would get the average employer a massive law suit if it were on their employee application?
ReplyDelete