Alan Cooperman wrote a interesting story for the Washington Post that talks about the views that college faculty have towards religion. Specifically it seems that negative views of evangelical Christians topped the list in the one study that was done:
The other survey, by the San Francisco-based Institute for Jewish and Community Research, confirmed those findings but also found what the institute’s director and chief pollster, Gary A. Tobin, called an “explosive” statistic: 53 percent of its sample of 1,200 college and university faculty members said they have “unfavorable” feelings toward evangelical Christians.
A graph accompanying the story drove the point home. By comparison, only three percent of faculty members had unfavorable feelings toward Jews. What’s funny is that the latter survey was designed to gauge anti-Semitism.
The only groups with significantly negative responses were Christians and Muslims. A full third of faculty had negative views toward Mormons, with 22 percent reporting unfavorable views toward Muslims, 18 percent with negative feelings toward atheists, 13 percent with negative feelings toward Roman Caholics, 10 percent with negative feelings toward the non-religious, nine percent with negative feelings toward non-evangelical Christians and four percent reporting negative views toward Buddhists.
Link to the full article at washingtonpost.com
Two students challenge Asian American admission discrimination February 9, 2007Posted by C.A.R.D in Asian American Students Association, Asian Equality in Admissions, Card, Carr, Discriminate, Discrimination, discrimination in college admissions, James Miller, Latin American Students Organization, multicultural, Organization of United African Peoples, Racism, Racism in college admissions, Racist, university, Yale University.
Many may pass over the question without a second thought, but identifying race or ethnicity on Brown’s undergraduate admission application has become a concern for Neil Vangala ’09. Vangala has started a group on campus called Asian Equality in Admissions, which will address discrimination in admission against Asians and Asian Americans.
Vangala and Jason Carr ’09 started the group last month after learning of a recent case of supposed discrimination against Jian Li, currently a freshman at Yale University. Li filed a civil rights complaint against Princeton University, alleging that the university had discriminated against him during the admission process.
“Stereotypes are ingrained in the admission process,” Carr said. “Like (Asians) are too studious, or they lack extracurricular activities.”
“I think we have a right to know if (admission officers) discriminate against us after reading our names,” Vangala said. “On paper, simply because they’re Asian, you assume certain things about them.”
Carr said many students at Yale think Li shouldn’t complain about where he ended up. “(Li) was such a good student, so he got into one of the Ivies that he applied to,” Carr said. “We fully realize that his complaint won’t fully change anything.”
“We think this is indicative of a trend,” Vangala said. “Jian Li is trying to identify a trend, but the response is that Asians should accept less.”
This general ambivalence towards Li’s case was reflected in an op-ed published in the Daily Princetonian, the school’s student newspaper. The op-ed mocked Li’s complaint against the university, stating, “I so good at math and science. Perfect 2400 SAT score. Ring bells? Just in cases, let me refresh your memories. I the super smart Asian. Princeton the super dumb college, not accept me.”
Chanakya Sethi, the editor in chief of the Princetonian when the op-ed was published, wrote in an e-mail to The Herald, “The piece should be judged in context with due consideration of its intent. It was run in a joke issue full of parody and satire, and our intent was to mock stereotypes.”
“It’s not appropriate. It doesn’t matter who perpetuates the stereotypes,” Carr said.
Late last month Uppsala University was found guilty of discrimination against Swedes by the Swedish Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen). Three years ago, the university refused to enroll Cecilia Lönn and Josefine Milander in its Law Faculty even though they had better grades than thirty other students with a foreign background.
In 2003, thirty of the available places for the law courses had been reserved for students with a foreign background. Cecilia Lönn and Josefine Milander, both with better grades than all of those thirty students who were allowed in, were refused by the university. The two young ladies sued the university. They won twice in lower courts. Now the Supreme Court, too, has ruled in their favor and ordered the university to pay them a compensation of SEK 75,000 (approximately €8,200). The court expenses they made, about SEK 41,000 (approximately $4,500), will be reimbursed by the state.
Neither the Supreme Court nor the two women question the principle of positive discrimination, as long as it is practised between candidates who are equally qualified. Not so, however, when somebody with a foreign background is favored even though the Swede had better grades, since this is not positive discrimination, but just plain discrimination. Hence the Supreme Court wanted to set a clear example of what cannot be considered to be positive discrimination and therefore is illegal.
Israel Bars New Palestinian Students From Its Universities, Citing Concern Over Security October 16, 2006Posted by C.A.R.D in ban, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Discrimination, Israel, Israeli, Jew, Jewish, Muslim, Palestine, Palestinian, Race, Racism, Racist, university, West Bank.
Sawsan Salameh, a Palestinian from the West Bank, was thrilled to get a full scholarship from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to begin a doctorate in theoretical chemistry.
But a recent move by the Israeli Army to ban new Palestinian students from Israeli universities for security reasons is keeping her from studying at the campus, just two miles from her home.
“The first time I applied for a permit I was rejected,” said Ms. Salameh, 29, a Muslim wearing a firmly fastened head scarf and a black denim skirt that skimmed the floor. “I was shocked, because I thought there must be some kind of mistake, so I kept trying. I kept hoping.”
Her situation is familiar to many Palestinians whose freedom of movement has been limited in recent years because of the continuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Ms. Salameh said that after she appealed six times to the Israeli government agency that handles Palestinian affairs, she decided to turn to the Supreme Court. On Tuesday, Gisha, an Israeli group that is an advocate for Palestinian rights, submitted a petition on her behalf to the court, calling the ban illegal.
“Gisha calls upon Israel not to prevent Palestinian students from studying just because they are Palestinian,” said the group’s director, Sari Bashi. “No one should be denied access to education based on his or her national identity.”
Discrimination Against The Rich Or The Poor? August 15, 2006Posted by C.A.R.D in Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Discrimination, Poor, Rich, university.
When students take to the streets, they’re usually united against something like war or racism. But when Indian students took to the streets last May they had a different cause. These were children of the wealthy upper castes out to stop a plan to reserve more university places for their peers from poor and lower-caste backgrounds. This was youth versus youth, and they were fighting for the status quo.
Resistance to social-leveling campaigns in higher education isn’t limited to India. When a top French Grande Ecole—alma mater of presidents and prime ministers—began giving preferential treatment to poor students, there was an outcry from the upper classes. In Britain, there are fears that efforts by top-tier universities to recruit more students from state secondary schools will dumb down the ivory tower. These controversies say something important about the state of academia: for all the pious attacks on injustice that emanate from universities, the class gap is growing from the United States to Britain, parts of Continental Europe and Asia. The reasons are myriad: state-controlled systems that artificially limit the number of university places, admissions procedures that favor the privately educated, falling financial aid and failing public secondary schools.
A Victory Against Racism: Affirmative Action on Ballot July 27, 2006Posted by C.A.R.D in A Victory Against Racism, admissions, affirmative action, Against, Amendment, anti-affirmative, anti-affirmative action, Ballet, ballot, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, color, court, Discriminate, Discrimination, Diversity, ethnicity, gender, government, Michigan, national origin, November, programs, Race, Racism, Supreme, university, Victory.
The Michigan Supreme Court will not remove an anti-affirmative action measure from Novembers’ statewide ballot. The court rejected a request that it reconsider an earlier decision which sent the measure to Michigan voters.
The proposed amendment would ban government and university admissions programs from basing preference on race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin.