I doubt universities in general, including psychology, have much of a diverse representation.
But isn't diversification the wrong word? Is it not really about being politically correct? Are there not really only 3 groups that count as diversity? That is, women, gays, and blacks. Since when did having more black faculty mean diversification? Is anyone ensuring that we have a representative percentage of Chinese, Japanese, East Indian, Native Indian and Latin to name a few? Should we not also be trying to ensure a decent representation between faculty with liberal political views with those who identify with conservative political views? A good balance between atheistic faculty with faculty who have christian and/or other faiths? Etc. It isn't about diversity, it's about political correctness and avoiding law suits. --Mike On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Mike Palij <[email protected]> wrote: > ABC News (US version) has a short article on its website about prior > racial problems in Cambridge, MA, and at Harvard and MIT; see: > > http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=8170735 > > The larger issue is how well represented are African-Americans as > faculty in our institutions of higher learning (outside of traditionally > Black colleges)? Apparently, not very well. Can departments of > psychology claim to have any better representation? > > Maybe summer reading lists can add Robert Guthrie's "Even the Rat > was White" as a prompt for some self-reflection. Available at Amazon: > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0205392644 > > -Mike Palij > New York University > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
