Asking questions is a rhetorical device to get people thinking. They are an easy way to make a point with having to actually make the point.
Here are a few we have for your consideration.
We doubt anyone on the left will bother to answer them either in The Voice, The Hoya, much less our comments section, though we won’t be surprised if they accuse those asking or discussing these questions of being all the -ists and -ics and -obics they can muster.
All this week we’ll be asking questions. We’ll have a special announcement on Friday.
Feel free to ask more questions in the comments.
- Considering the $300K cost of a Georgetown education and massive student loan debt that comes with it, doesn’t the University have a responsibility to only admit and hire the best qualified students, professors, and staff members possible?
- Why is it appropriate to admit or hire someone who is under-qualified but selected just because of affirmative action and the fact they check some diversity box when they can’t perform or do the job as well as other candidates?
- If we have affirmative action admissions and hiring preferences for certain minority groups so their numbers on campus reflect their numbers in the general population, shouldn’t we do something similar for other minority groups whose percentages at Georgetown are presently lower than the general population, for example, Evangelicals, conservatives, Republicans, lower class members of society, and those who attended public schools?
- According to an interview with GSP Program Coordinator Missy Foy in The Voice, “around 60 percent of students [at Georgetown] come from the wealthiest three percent of American families.” We tried finding the number who attended private schools, which nationally is 10%, but couldn’t. We suspect from an informal survey that 50% or more of the studentry comes from private schools, but we don’t know for sure. If anyone has the data, let us know and we’ll update. According to The Hoya, when it came to enrollment for the Class of 2017, of the top 12 feeder schools for Georgetown, 8 were private boarding schools, 2 were non-boarding private schools, and only 2 were public schools. These 12 schools alone accounted for 6% of the undergraduate student population. In light of this information, shouldn’t Georgetown make a point of ensuring 90% of all students admitted are public high school graduates in order to be in line with national statistics? And shouldn’t we ensure that rather than having children from the top 3% of American families comprising 60% of the undergraduate student population, we have instead proportional socioeconomic representation, meaning those from the top 3% of wealthiest families in American only comprise 3% of the studentry, and not 60%?
- If diversity is so important, why do studies show that universities employ five times the number of liberal professors than they do conservatives? Shouldn’t intellectual diversity be relevant (and more important) in an academic setting, especially when we’re constantly told that it is important to have people who can “think outside the box” or “think differently” and who bring “different experiences” to the table?
- Why do we always talk about “white privilege” but never talk about “Asian privilege” or “Jewish privilege” despite a plethora of studies showing these two groups outperform every other demographic group in terms of income (also here and here) and acceptance at elite universities (also here and here)?
- And shouldn’t the representation of Jews and Asians at Georgetown reflect national demographics? Around 10% of the undergraduate student population is Jewish, despite Jews comprising only 1.7-2.6% of American society. That means Jews are over-represented on campus by 400-500%. Asians are 11.3% on the Hilltop even though most recent census demographics show they comprise only 4.7% of society, meaning they are over-represented at Georgetown by more than 200%. And in America the male/female sex ratio is pretty much 50/50, though it is skewed by age since there are more men between the ages of 15-40 and less men after that age because men die younger. Yet women at Georgetown are 55%. Meanwhile, blacks, who are 12.2% of society, only make up 6.9% of students at Georgetown, and Latinos, who are at 16.3% of the population, only make up 9.2% of students. Whites who (depending on how you count) are 60.1 to 63.7% of society are between 55.4 and 65.4% of the studentry at Georgetown (again, depending on how you count). Now if we’re told the student population should reflect national demographics because of fairness and diversity and equality and justice and all those good things, isn’t it clear we should significantly lower the numbers of Jews, Asians, and women on campus while increasing the number of blacks, Latinos, and men? As to whites, depending on which stat you use (like we said, it all depends on how you count), we should either increase their numbers 4-5% or drop them by about 1-2% in order to be in line with national demographics.
- Why do we have a Georgetown professor with decades of experience on faculty hiring committees writing in the Wall Street Journal about institutional discrimination against those on the right, specifically, the apparently common practices of committee chairpersons stating at the outset of the hiring process that no libertarians or conservatives will be considered for the position, the changing of hiring criteria whenever the most qualified applicant appears to be on the right, and the blackballing of candidates and trash-canning of their applications if they have any connection to libertarian or conservative institutions? Isn't such bias unacceptable at a University that claims to care about diversity and the search for truth?
If there are some questions you think we should ask but haven't, let us know.