RE: UCLA questions a council nominee for 40 mins about faith
We all have biases. The question is OK, because the best way to control for bias is to be aware that it exists and what those biases are. But I get the impression from the article that the review board believes that they are somehow beyond such mortal trappings and have achieved peak impartiality.
RE: UCLA questions a council nominee for 40 mins about faith
If she had been a homosexual activist there would have been no issue with any perceived or real biases. In fact, she probably would've received special treatment. This is what happens in academia to people who are active regarding their faith.
RE: UCLA questions a council nominee for 40 mins about faith
Yeah, I saw this earlier in the week and at that time I thought if an openly gay guy or Mulsim was being interviewed it would have been a walk in the park. I don't understand liberals, they do everything they can to alienate those who would take their side on something yet defend those who would kill them without batting an eye. The left has more in common with Jews than Muslims but they discriminate against Jews for reasons I'll never understand. And I can't believe Youtube removed the recording.
RE: UCLA questions a council nominee for 40 mins about faith
(03-06-2015 09:36 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: We all have biases. The question is OK, because the best way to control for bias is to be aware that it exists and what those biases are. But I get the impression from the article that the review board believes that they are somehow beyond such mortal trappings and have achieved peak impartiality.
No, it's not OK. It's ok to ask someone if they are capable of resolving a conflict of interest. It is not ok to spend 45 minutes discussing whether someone's religion makes an extraordinary candidate unqualified for a position (and the discussion began with comments from everyone involved that the candidate had outstanding qualifications and was very impressive). This is a case study in modern antisemitism, including the obligatory protests that the inquisitors did not want the discussion to be characterized as antisemitism.
Three of the four students that were behind this were themselves religious minorities - two Muslim girls and one Sikh. They all should have been particularly sensitive to this kind of idiocy (the fourth seems to be super-secretive). To their credit, the four wrote a public apology to the school newspaper.
But, the hypocrisy involved in going through this line of inquiry is particularly significant given that two of them celebrated their appointments to the same body by publicly affirming their religious background and indicating that it made them uniquely qualified to represent those with similar background. This was just horrible judgement for them to start down this road and continue.
Our experiences at UCLA have been similar. We are two Muslim women of color who have dealt with the transfer process and the culture shift of coming from community colleges to this large institution.
We are dedicated to a high moral ground of progressive politics, with aspirations to represent those who, like ourselves, are underrepresented. We envision an equitable UCLA.
RE: UCLA questions a council nominee for 40 mins about faith
(03-06-2015 11:16 AM)I45owl Wrote:
(03-06-2015 09:36 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: We all have biases. The question is OK, because the best way to control for bias is to be aware that it exists and what those biases are. But I get the impression from the article that the review board believes that they are somehow beyond such mortal trappings and have achieved peak impartiality.
No, it's not OK. It's ok to ask someone if they are capable of resolving a conflict of interest. It is not ok to spend 45 minutes discussing whether someone's religion makes an extraordinary candidate unqualified for a position (and the discussion began with comments from everyone involved that the candidate had outstanding qualifications and was very impressive). This is a case study in modern antisemitism, including the obligatory protests that the inquisitors did not want the discussion to be characterized as antisemitism.
Three of the four students that were behind this were themselves religious minorities - two Muslim girls and one Sikh. They all should have been particularly sensitive to this kind of idiocy (the fourth seems to be super-secretive). To their credit, the four wrote a public apology to the school newspaper.
But, the hypocrisy involved in going through this line of inquiry is particularly significant given that two of them celebrated their appointments to the same body by publicly affirming their religious background and indicating that it made them uniquely qualified to represent those with similar background. This was just horrible judgement for them to start down this road and continue.
Our experiences at UCLA have been similar. We are two Muslim women of color who have dealt with the transfer process and the culture shift of coming from community colleges to this large institution.
We are dedicated to a high moral ground of progressive politics, with aspirations to represent those who, like ourselves, are underrepresented. We envision an equitable UCLA.
RE: UCLA questions a council nominee for 40 mins about faith
Couple of thoughts.
A key quote:
Quote:...echo the kind of questions, prejudices and tropes — particularly about divided loyalties — that have plagued Jews across the globe for centuries...
and led to abominations such as the Holocaust.
Anyone realize that Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan are Jewish. So fully one third of the Supremes are subject to these perceived biases. (Thank goodness there are six Catholics to add balance.)
RE: UCLA questions a council nominee for 40 mins about faith
(03-06-2015 12:57 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote: Couple of thoughts.
A key quote:
Quote:...echo the kind of questions, prejudices and tropes — particularly about divided loyalties — that have plagued Jews across the globe for centuries...
and led to abominations such as the Holocaust.
Anyone realize that Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan are Jewish. So fully one third of the Supremes are subject to these perceived biases. (Thank goodness there are six Catholics to add balance.)
Finally, she is hotter than Melissa Harris-Perry.
once upon a time they were 'worried' that jfk was catholic.....
I want an atheist president 'stat' at this point in time....one way or the other, you fkrs are gonna figure this shite out one day.......it never really mattered until Al invented the internutz.....
technology is that double-edged biatch......
(This post was last modified: 03-06-2015 01:03 PM by stinkfist.)
RE: UCLA questions a council nominee for 40 mins about faith
(03-06-2015 11:16 AM)I45owl Wrote: No, it's not OK. It's ok to ask someone if they are capable of resolving a conflict of interest. It is not ok to spend 45 minutes discussing whether someone's religion makes an extraordinary candidate unqualified for a position (and the discussion began with comments from everyone involved that the candidate had outstanding qualifications and was very impressive). This is a case study in modern antisemitism, including the obligatory protests that the inquisitors did not want the discussion to be characterized as antisemitism.
Do that in a job interview and you and your employer gets sued. We suspended an old school Battalion Chief for a week for asking a similar type question in a promotional interview.
RE: UCLA questions a council nominee for 40 mins about faith
(03-06-2015 11:16 AM)I45owl Wrote:
(03-06-2015 09:36 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: We all have biases. The question is OK, because the best way to control for bias is to be aware that it exists and what those biases are. But I get the impression from the article that the review board believes that they are somehow beyond such mortal trappings and have achieved peak impartiality.
No, it's not OK. It's ok to ask someone if they are capable of resolving a conflict of interest. It is not ok to spend 45 minutes discussing whether someone's religion makes an extraordinary candidate unqualified for a position (and the discussion began with comments from everyone involved that the candidate had outstanding qualifications and was very impressive). This is a case study in modern antisemitism, including the obligatory protests that the inquisitors did not want the discussion to be characterized as antisemitism.
I don't see much difference between what I stated and the part bolded above. Juries are sometime constructed for their potential biases. It's one of the factors in why OJ was acquitted. I myself have been asked whether my race or position (Naval Officer) would be a potential conflict of interest.
I'm not familiar with what this board is supposed to do, but it's clear from their deliberations that they have some hang up on her being actively Jewish for reasons I can't determine. Yes, this body was clearly discriminatory.
RE: UCLA questions a council nominee for 40 mins about faith
(03-06-2015 01:28 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:
(03-06-2015 11:16 AM)I45owl Wrote:
(03-06-2015 09:36 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: We all have biases. The question is OK, because the best way to control for bias is to be aware that it exists and what those biases are. But I get the impression from the article that the review board believes that they are somehow beyond such mortal trappings and have achieved peak impartiality.
No, it's not OK. It's ok to ask someone if they are capable of resolving a conflict of interest. It is not ok to spend 45 minutes discussing whether someone's religion makes an extraordinary candidate unqualified for a position (and the discussion began with comments from everyone involved that the candidate had outstanding qualifications and was very impressive). This is a case study in modern antisemitism, including the obligatory protests that the inquisitors did not want the discussion to be characterized as antisemitism.
I don't see much difference between what I stated and the part bolded above. Juries are sometime constructed for their potential biases. It's one of the factors in why OJ was acquitted. I myself have been asked whether my race or position (Naval Officer) would be a potential conflict of interest.
I'm not familiar with what this board is supposed to do, but it's clear from their deliberations that they have some hang up on her being actively Jewish for reasons I can't determine. Yes, this body was clearly discriminatory.
The distinction is that asking the general case question may be ok, but that is absolutely not what they did. They asked if she can be free of bias because she is a Jew. When they got the correct answer, they went through an extended dialog about whether they could trust a Jew. Not because she had said or done anything to indicate they could not trust her. They just weren't sure that a Jew could be trusted. What they did is absolutely not ok.
You may have imagined that the question at hand was whether she could recuse herself should her Jewish identity be brought to bear, but at least two of the inquisitors had explicitly indicated that their perspective was needed in similar cases.
The fact is that the opposition to this candidate was opposed because it might get in the way of Boycott-Divest-Sanction agenda that the board was likely to embark on at some undetermined time. Having a Jew on their body might be inconvenient in such a case.
http://dailybruin.com/2015/02/12/editori...iminatory/ Wrote:Barring the dubious legality of not appointing someone based on his or her religious identity, the controversy over Beyda’s appointment makes little logical sense. The extent of Beyda’s involvement in Jewish community groups is irrelevant to her ability to execute her job on the Judicial Board. Suggesting otherwise implies that any person with any kind of community identity cannot make objective decisions on the board.
If Beyda cannot make decisions about issues that affect her community, can a Muslim student in the Muslim Students Association or a black student in the Afrikan Student Union do so? A Latino student in MEChA?
For a council seemingly obsessed with celebrating diversity in student positions and advocating against discrimination, the proceedings of Tuesday’s meeting were particularly hypocritical.
Several councilmembers asserted that while Beyda was more than qualified for the role, they were uncomfortable appointing her to the position specifically because cases related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can come before the board, and they felt that Beyda would not be able to judge such cases fairly.
And yet, in recent years, the only case related to the topic that went before the board had to do with the issue of councilmembers’ Israel trips, which is unrelated to the conflict itself. Not to mention that it is not the purpose of the Judicial Board to rule on cases related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only on cases related to “cases of actions taken among the officers, commissioners and funding bodies to ensure compliance with the (USAC constitution) and bylaws.”
It is obvious that the objections to Beyda’s appointment are not only political, but also discriminatory. To hold an applicant to a standard higher than others simply because of his or her ethnic or religious identity instead of his or her ability to rule fairly in accordance with USAC regulations is illogical and immoral.
/
UCLA questions a council nominee for 40 mins about faith
