Online activism irritants are the scourge of the internet. A little-known selfie trend has unusual implications for Affirmative Action. The best two Universities in GB are Oxford and Cambridge aka Oxbridge aka Camford. They were among the first Universities in the world and seldom place low in global ranking. “I, too, am Oxford” was a selfie trend by attention-whoring minorities holding up whiteboards with trivial ‘microaggression’ complaints when they’re at the best institution for learning possible. Yeah, spoilt much?
Refreshingly predictable, the feminists didn’t like competition and began “We are all Oxford”, here’s the tumblr (yes tumblr again) http://wearealloxford.tumblr.com/
We are ALL Oxford – yeah, why would they complain, they all got in. It is entirely feasible they might have failed to, were it not for the diversity targets set by the British government. Why? To look good for the European Union, who set diversity targets to shut the feminazis up.
One boy’s sign in particular struck me: “Your brain not your background open Oxford’s doors” – Err, no, Flying Spaghetti Monster haired bro.
You need to pay to even apply (I almost applied but decided against for these reasons, I know the system) and then there’s prep for their admissions tests you need a privileged upbringing to pass (posh word test), transport, marking, face-to-face interviews because looks don’t matter, early application (poor schools miss the deadline by default) and compulsory emphasis on extra-curricular requiring your parents have surplus funds e.g. taking time to do charity work for free, travel the world and throw some inspiring anecdote to dazzle interviewers, start a company to help inexplicably starving women with gold earrings and freshly ironed clothes in Africa.
How the hell did he get in? ~ a question everyone who’s been to University has asked multiple times in our heads while present. Post-hoc delusion? Probable. Brains are the standard for Higher Education. The entire level, assuming we’re following the narrow convention of rote memorization over flexible useful knowledge but it’s Oxford, of course we are. Still, thick-skulled aspirants and even the genius poor need not apply. Them’s the breaks. Oxford has targets and they are paid by the Government to meet them. If the money dried up, most of those applicants would be out of the ivory towers in the cold like the rest of England.
When do the targets stop? When will the factors beyond control (birthplace, melanin level, sob story) be left to the TV singing competitions where they belong? Certainly no society claiming to be meritocratic could support these policies. If they’re good enough, they’ll get in or it’s our loss, right? I have asked around including some rather high-up feminists. They say never, never will these policies cease and call enough, we’re done! Disturbingly, they have zero problem with this (while their own White middle class are a majority, allowing them a high horse for Little Princess, but demo changes are a sweet irony of power structures). While you take into factor these pointless, culturally-coddled details, it is discrimination against unprotected classes. There isn’t positive discrimination, it’s an oxymoron. If your biggest problem in life is a microaggression, you are too sensitive to survive in any cut-throat academic environment and have no real problems. Let’s be pragmatic about this: Doesn’t a white majority country logically necessitate a white majority populace in its own academia? Or is that national majority up for changing, too? Shall you push them down to the poor quality Universities or do the clever but poor or statistically ousted natives (not oppressed enough – snark) not deserve their cultural legacy and biological heritage? The one their kin and forefathers built and earned credibility for? It’s bad enough when Beyoncé appropriates Nordic European culture to push her tacky show. There are no definitive answers given from the Utopic Unrealists on these questions. Didn’t Camus say “Utopia is that which is in contradiction with reality“? [Yes. And it was beautiful.] They have no responsibility for the results and no personal stake, no one should take them seriously, it’s their saviour complex dream and they squeeze people into their narrative.
The cure? Involve them and see how fast they change their tune, “But my family’s always gone to Oxford!”, yeah well now you’re disinherited, don’t let the big doors your ancestors carved crush your body and your dreams on the way out.
Feminists will never stick up for (support) the poor, they look down upon the working poor as inferiors and simultaneously immoral for being common (yes, that level of classism). Coincidentally, I have never met a working class feminist, everyone from that class I’ve asked turned the air blue (swore profusely) at the “accusation”. Bravo.
They’ll only begin to see their error when they personally suffer and the demography of their bubble changes completely, by then it’s too late. At present, it is the poor and genuinely creative who suffer for the follies of the deranged. Why else do you think so many entrepreneurs forgo Higher Ed? It doesn’t want them while the targets are juicy veins of taxpayer money, funding the betterment of non-taxpayers. Admitting targets and limits and standards involve unhooking their claws from Political Power and believe me, they are drunk on the stuff as the students they brainwash with “The Real World is Evil” ~ from people too scared to enter it.
I can see why the accepted students fall for the ruse, the experimental group is wholly biased. Wouldn’t it feel extra-special to say “We accept you for what you’ve had no hand in earning but we actually love you for all you earnt! Including us! £££! Everybody wins!” Janusian tactics when we have no control group to compare results with. What do they do with their precious raw results? Grade inflate, extensively. The diverse student body is so naturally talented, they need their degrees puffed up as their egos in a sad bid for alumni funding.