Does the university then have to "enforce" diversity in all its events? Though I understand the point of diversity, but enforcing it might hurt more than it help.

Well, one of the purposes of an institute of higher learning is to provide opportunities for education. By cancelling and even that appears to promote a troubling status quo, they are both explicitly and visibly not condoning that status quo and at the same time providing an opportunity for those with a quick enough wit to benefit from a raised awareness of the problems of others.

Of course, they're not required to do such a thing, and obviously the learning opportunity is lost on some. Nevertheless, just having the conversation may have made one tiny change somewhere, and with enough such conversations and changes, inexorable progress gets made.

Of course, they're not required to do such a thing, and obviously the learning opportunity is lost on some. Nevertheless, just having the conversation may have made one tiny change somewhere, and with enough such conversations and changes, inexorable progress gets made.

Industry is more important than perceived gender equality, and this school has only managed to hurt their own industry.

Seriously, none of the remaining panelists was willing to throw on a wig and pull the trans card? I'd have gone with that.

Seriously, none of the remaining panelists was willing to throw on a wig and pull the trans card? I'd have gone with that.

I hope you are joking. regardless, it's in rather poor taste.

A straight male cross-dressing to fake diversity is at best missing the point.

Seriously, none of the remaining panelists was willing to throw on a wig and pull the trans card? I'd have gone with that.

I hope you are joking. regardless, it's in rather poor taste.

A straight male cross-dressing to fake diversity is at best missing the point.

Frankly, I see little difference between them; conquestor suggests a tasteless caricature, and USC apparently wants a gender-representative petting zoo. Both are hollow mockeries of gender equality.

"Diversity" is something incidental. if you're actively attempting to reach it, you're already off the rails.

Of course, they're not required to do such a thing, and obviously the learning opportunity is lost on some. Nevertheless, just having the conversation may have made one tiny change somewhere, and with enough such conversations and changes, inexorable progress gets made.

Industry is more important than perceived gender equality, and this school has only managed to hurt their own industry.

Seriously, none of the remaining panelists was willing to throw on a wig and pull the trans card? I'd have gone with that.

It's all very well and good to throw the occasional bone to women folk and those coloured people but god damn it, not when it threatens the ability to extend my privilege unchecked. Surely someone in a wig and some black face would help students focus on the real problems facing people every day, like how to make more profitable leisure time pursuits.

"Diversity" is something incidental. if you're actively attempting to reach it, you're already off the rails.

Diversity is important only to the 95% of the population that would benefit from it. If you're not actively attempting to reach it, you're not only part of the problem, you are the problem.

Their FB post seems pretty clear to me https://www.facebook.com/USCIMGD/posts/878639255577858:0

Also they're pretty much acknowledging one of their panelists was a token woman to "promote diversity". Tbh I'd be pissed if I were her.

Of course, they're not required to do such a thing, and obviously the learning opportunity is lost on some. Nevertheless, just having the conversation may have made one tiny change somewhere, and with enough such conversations and changes, inexorable progress gets made.

Industry is more important than perceived gender equality, and this school has only managed to hurt their own industry.

Seriously, none of the remaining panelists was willing to throw on a wig and pull the trans card? I'd have gone with that.

It's all very well and good to throw the occasional bone to women folk and those coloured people but god damn it, not when it threatens the ability to extend my privilege unchecked. Surely someone in a wig and some black face would help students focus on the real problems facing people every day, like how to make more profitable leisure time pursuits.

"Privilege" is code for "you're a white male, fuck off". The entire point is that ethnicity and gender don't matter. Not "don't matter unless you're <insert category here>".

"Diversity" is something incidental. if you're actively attempting to reach it, you're already off the rails.

Diversity is important only to the 95% of the population that would benefit from it. If you're not actively attempting to reach it, you're not only part of the problem, you are the problem.

I don't think you realize what the problem even is. Diversity (or lack thereof) is a symptom, not a disease. It's the "I'm not racist, I have black friends" of social gatherings.

What we need to do is fix the problems keeping women out of the industry, not marvel at the Emperor's backside.

What we need to do is fix the problems keeping women out of the industry.

Guess where a significant portion of those problem manifest? In universities.

Promoting diversity in educational settings is one of the primary tools available to us in order to help improve representation of minorities in industry.

What we need to do is fix the problems keeping women out of the industry.

Guess where a significant portion of those problem manifest? In universities.

Promoting diversity in educational settings is one of the primary tools available to us in order to help improve representation of minorities in industry.

I'm fairly certain these problems predate universities by a good decade. The ratio of men to women enrolling in, say, computer science is abysmal. As far as I can tell, it's much more significant that at a young age:

1. Girls are discouraged from technical/engineering tasks, and encouraged to take up "social" disciplines.
2. Girls are discouraged from playing games.

3. Girls are discouraged from being competitive (which sort of rolls back into 2).

Obviously it's more complicated than just this, but this is far closer to the root of the problem than the University level. The role of universities should be to not discriminate, not to drive people into certain disciplines.

Regardless, cherry-picking based on gender is inherently sexist, and no, you can't "fight fire with fire". Not saying that's what USC did, but canceling an event because it coincidentally became less diverse is basically the same thing.