> The article is an essay that starts by citing Supreme Court case law
Wrong. First 3 sentences:
> All across the Academy, schools are requiring “Diversity Statements” as a condition for new hires. Everyone has to submit a statement explaining how they are going to contribute to “diversity”. What you’re supposed to do in these, and what everyone damn well knows you’re supposed to do, is (i) talk about your race, gender, and other “identity group” traits that it would be illegal for the university to explicitly ask you about, and (ii) talk about your activism on behalf of left-wing identity politics.
It primes the reader with subjective and emotionally driven flamebait.
So you stopped reading after three sentences, right.
And no, the section you quoted is not "subjective and emotionally driven flamebait", that's the exact sort of tactics I'm talking about. The existence of this practice is widely reported - objective - and if you are really willing to argue that the suggested responses are not what you're meant to write about then go ahead and argue that.
You can't because the true situation is plain to see, so instead throw tantrums to try and stop other people discussing the extremely important debasement of universities. There is nothing "flamebait" about raising the alarm about real problems in the world.
