In response to “Faculty diversity: ‘We’re not doing shit’” (by Brittny Mejia, Nov. 5):

What does the color or the ethnicity of a professor have to do with the quality of education I receive? I would think the UA would hire based on merit and proven success. Not once have I had a class where I thought, ‘damn I wish this professor was a minority [because] he would know so much more biochemistry.’

— jared

It’s outrageous that the UA is willing to potentially lower the quality of education students receive by using hiring metrics that are not based on merit, all so a bunch of highly paid faculty can pat themselves on the back and congratulate each other about how “diverse” they are. Why is the word “progress” used to describe hiring people on the basis of their particular skin color? There is only one word to describe hiring people based on their skin color: racist. Why is having 20 percent minority faculty viewed as “unacceptable”? The UA faculty is clearly hyper sensitive to hiring minorities, so there is no need to view slight minority under-representation as “unacceptable.” UA students want a high-quality education so they can compete in the job market and have a societal impact. Decades from now, no UA student will care about the color of their professors’ skin, and rightfully so.

— David

To answer the question posed why we should be recruiting diverse professors, the answer is simple: it’s been statistically proven that more diverse groups yield higher productivity and more efficient results. Diversity, both in thought and identity, produces spaces where there are multiple ways to approach problems and identify solutions in ways that homogeneity does not yield. So, you want a first-rate education?

You SHOULD be encouraging more diverse perspectives in the fields you are studying. To assume that ‘minorities’ (which are not actually minorities in most cases, Rob, demographics are highly malleable and whites are not a super majority anymore), are automatically less qualified is highly telling of your thinking. There is ample evidence to suggest groups choose affiliation with those that are similar to them, which means highly homogenous groups tend to ‘block out’ others who are different…which affects hiring diversity. It’s not that there are no qualified or less qualified applicants; we need to make sure we are not creating institutional barriers to hiring them!

There is no reduction in quality of applicant; the aim here is to incorporate the facts that diversity is beneficial to all and to control for biases against “different” candidates in order to ensure a well-rounded faculty base.

— Alex D.

This article has brought up a really important perspective in education. Diversity in faculty is an important factor in education. Many inequities still exist in higher educational institutions and it is important that all of our voices are heard.

— Monica C.

Maybe the Faculty Senate ought to establish a task force or committee to address issues of diversity, equity and inclusion at the UA.

— MJ

In response to “ACC needs to support clean energy, not coal companies” (by Max Weintraub, Nov. 3):

Edison’s electric light bulb didn’t replace the gas lights because it was cheaper, but it also didn’t replace gas lights because it received federal subsidies. Flat screens didn’t replace CRTs because they were cheaper, but also they didn’t receive federal subsidies. Solar power hasn’t replaced coal/natural gas/oil because it is cheaper despite receiving all sorts of federal/state subsidies.

Consumers recognize a superior product and are willing to pay for it. Consumers recognize an inferior product and are unwilling to pay for it. When solar energy products become clearly superior to consumers, they will gladly pay for it. The marketplace rewards superior innovation. The government rewards political rhetoric.

— brucehall