Look at What the Stanford Survey Deemed Rampant “Discriminatory and Harassing Behaviors” On Campus

Yesterday, a reeducation camp with an 80K a year price tag, formerly known as Stanford University, was hit with this “bombshell” report:

Widespread discriminatory and harassing behaviors disproportionally affect communities of color as well as non-binary, trans and disabled communities on campus, according to the findings of the University’s first campus-wide Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) survey released on Wednesday.

As a parent of a Stanford student, I am really glad that Stanford takes “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” seriously enough to employ a “Vice Provost for Institutional Equity, Access, and Community.” Paying 80K annual tuition, I think this is money well spent.

At this year’s Opening Convocation ceremony, Senior Associate Vice Provost Mona Hicks delivered a speech to the students that was nothing short of inspiring.  In part, she said this:

“Believe that you belong.  We reframed our entire paradigm to ensure that you do.  Community and belonging are at the cornerstone of our new neighborhood model.  Belonging means we want to see each of you feel seen… feel connected, cared about, accepted, respected and valued.”

Seeing a very diverse community of students and faculty, and also living near Stanford for many years, it has always been my impression that Stanford was very much the place Dean Hicks described.  The DEI survey, however, painted a very different picture:

“Approximately 63% of Black respondents reported experiencing at least one microaggression, according to the survey results.”

For those of you who have never applied to a selective college or have children who did: the application process to Stanford, or similarly prestigious educational establishment, can be described as nothing short of a boot camp. The admission committee scrutinizes every move your child made since the start of high school, if not before. The sleepless nights, the hours spent writing, the thinking that goes into every word is so arduous that your child is uniquely qualified to handle any challenge they will face going forward. Apparently, however, many young people (and their parents!) believe that once they successfully conquered college admissions, they are now in for an “easy ride” getting through college without experiencing “one microaggression.” Stanford University, whose alumni include Nobel Prize winners, Supreme Court Justices, and even US Presidents, now strives to be a “safe space” for emotionally fragile crybabies of all ages who go on CNN and cry every time somebody mispronounces their name.

Instead of telling his students to grow a pair, Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne came out with a predictable mea culpa:

“Based on the survey results, it is clear that we are not meeting our own expectations for the kind of inclusive culture we hope to create at Stanford. We must all work together to eliminate these behaviors that the survey showed are widespread in our community.”

Below are the examples of the “harmful behaviors” that make Stanford a terrible oppressive place that is nothing short of dangerous for your kids’ mental health (the full list is here.)

  • Someone told me that they “don’t see color” or we should not think about race anymore. At Stanford, we pride ourselves on always considering people’s race over anything else they can contribute to the Stanford community.
  • Someone assumed I come from a disadvantaged background. This must have been reported by the white students and interpreted as “cultural appropriation.”
  • Someone clenched her/his/their purse or wallet upon seeing me. Considering that people don’t usually carry their wallets in full view, this may be happening a lot more often than we think.
  • Someone’s body language showed they were scared of me. Considering that college students are well-known “experts” at reading body language, this is very concerning.
  • I am singled out by police or security people. Considering that after dark Stanford campus is full of inebriated students behaving in an erratic manner, the motives of campus security people are certainly suspect.
  • Someone assumed that I spoke a language other than English. Considering that 25% of the Stanford student body consists of international students who come from 49 countries, the assumption is clearly racist.
  • Someone made a derogatory remark or gesture in person or online. That never happened to a white conservative!
  • Someone defaced property with derogatory graffiti. That never happened at “mostly peaceful” BLM riots!

Well, folks, Stanford has got a serious situation on its hands. If a Stanford student is offended by “body language,” they are going to find studying at Stanford a very traumatic experience. Imagine the bewilderment and confusion that students will feel in science class when they discover that electricity was not discovered by a person of color. Imagine the anguish they will experience after reading a philosophy text suggesting that destroying property, even in the name of “social justice,” is not a moral way of life. And after they learn how many Americans actually died to free the slaves, not to mention liberate the world from Fascism and Communism, making the US the most selfless and noble country on the planet, that kid is destined for lifelong psychotherapy.

The DEI survey has clearly demonstrated that Stanford needs to create a “more welcoming and inclusive community” by rejecting real history and real science to assure that students and faculty never feel “threatened” or “harassed.”  The goal of Stanford is no longer to produce the thinkers and leaders of tomorrow who will face the new and unknown challenges with courage and conviction.  Stanford’s goal is to make every student feel warm and fuzzy, fully secure in their own beliefs, no matter how delusional they may be.

Just a couple of weeks ago, Stanford released their admission rate, which has fallen, yet again, to a historic 3.95%.   Unless your children’s names are Chelsea Clinton or Jennifer Gates, the odds of them getting into Stanford are nearly zero.  If they do get in, they should be very secure in their own achievements, and not whine about real or perceived “microaggressions.”

We can only hope that after the word gets out that Stanford is not “meeting expectations” of becoming “a more welcoming and inclusive community,” the number of applicants will drastically decline.  And that is a positive thing: maybe many extremely qualified kids who are “marginalized and excluded” every year by the Stanford admission committee for the sole reason that they don’t use words like “microaggression” in their essays have a better chance of getting in.

If you found this article informative, please consider a small donation to our coffee cup to help support Conservative Journalism – or spread the word. Thank you.

 RWR original article syndication source.

Share this:

What do you think?

Written by Tatyana Larina

Tatyana Larina comes from my favorite work of poetry.  And that's the only time you'll see me quoting Wikipedia as a source.

I came to the US in 1991, lived in San Francisco for 5 years, and I have a Computer Science degree.  I worked in software industry for several years, later switching to a career of a full time mom, and I never looked back.

In my younger days, I wasn’t a conservative. That is not to say that I was ever a liberal – I was not anything at all. I had no idea that there were such concepts as “conservative” and “liberal”. I did not pay attention to politics at all, and the most political knowledge you would get out of me would be who the US President was, and even for that you had to catch me on the right day.
My first introduction to politics was during the second Israeli intifada in 2002. Unspeakable violence erupted in Israel. Every day dozens of people were killed. Even though I didn’t follow politics, that deeply affected me. I felt sad, frustrated, and powerless. And one night, I happened to stumble on an MSNBC program called “Alan Keyes is making sense.” He was talking passionately about Israel and the violence, and he addressed my feelings very well.  Since that evening, I turned on Alan Keyes every night, and by his commentary he was able to take away some of the frustration and anger that I had. It was like a nightly therapy session.
Feeling intrigued after watching Alan Keyes, I wondered what else MSNBC had in store. I switched through the channels, and low and behold, I found Scarborough Country. Right off, Joe Scarborough wasn’t what he is today at all. He was a solid conservative (as I now understand), making common sense conservative points. I found him interesting and engaging. Opposing liberalism had not entered my mind at that time. I still didn’t know anything about liberalism. It was just the things he said sounded very common sense and worthwhile to me. Imagine that at some point, MSNBC had a conservative host on the air. Crazy times, ha?
Exploring my new political universe, I switched through more channels, and one night I found FOX. O’Reilly Factor was on. From the very first night, I was hooked. I abandoned Scarborough. O’Reilly was not just common sense – he was aggressive, and he was a fighter. He was Scarborough on steroids. He wasn’t just talking – he was taking on what he thought to be wrong and unjust. Ever since the first time, and until untimely end of Bill’s FOX career, I don’t think I ever missed one Factor.
For forming my political views, and my ability to formulate them, I have to give special credit to three people: Charles Krauthammer, Bill O’Reilly, and Greg Guttfeld.  To Charles - philosophy.  To Bill - realistic and pragmatic approach to politics.  To Greg - realization that a good joke will change more minds than a long lecture.
And for everything else, thanks to my family.

2 Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. When they say “inclusive culture,” what they really mean is “bowing culture,” bowing ingratiatingly to the fringe.

    I doubt if the engineering, math, biology, chemistry, and physics students answered the survey. They are too busy inventing things that will eventually help the “marginalized” students and their families.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Another EU state to ban unvaccinated from indoor spaces

Pew Research Center looks at political polarization in the U.S.