Aspiring Teacher Too Inclusive, Cornell University implies

by Kyle Perkins

The inclusive plan of aspiring dean Vijay Pendakur offends the student diversity chief by including all students equally. What specifically he aims to do is include all students in the discussions he’ll have as a dean if elected. As inclusive as this plan is, it appears to not sit well with the student diversity chief of the school at which he’s looking to be a dean. His idea meets the definition of equal opportunity. That is, the idea that people need an even learning field and need to be free from artificial barriers so that they can advance upon basis of individual talents.

However, the idea this student diversity chief has is just the opposite. This chief prefers equality of outcome, which is granting everyone the same outcome no matter their individual talents or works. So out of these two, I say Mr. Pendakur is the truly inclusive one. He goes right into strongly understanding the value of advancement by individual talent.

More Opportunity means More Prosperity

Nothing in human history has created more prosperity for all than building opportunity for all, as the Cato Institute notes. Building more opportunity for all is exactly what Mr. Pendakur is aiming to do. This does not just apply to an individual’s economic prosperity, but in this case, it also goes for academic prosperity.

Knowing a core libertarian principle is advancement on individual talent, students ought to be able to advance themselves accordingly. Playing favorites with some demographics over others demolishes opportunity, meaning demolition of prosperity. And this favoritism is what’s being used to try to excuse Mr. Pendakur from being a Cornell University Dean.

Mr. Pendakur Nailed What the Problem is

Vijay Pendakur has stated that it is a problem to hear “diversity and inclusion” and think “playing favorites with previously shunned demographics.” And the fact of life that Cornell University needs to accept if it is to sit well with sanity is that Pendakur is absolutely right. Even paraphrasing what he said, the reality pointed out remains the same: that you do not build a better society by playing favorites with those of people who were normally shunned in the past.

Instead, build a better society by a chain of voluntary individual displays of charity. One starts with helping out the people they know personally. And then those others help the third people they know personally. Eventually, you improve your society through voluntary and individualistic brotherhood. I trust that Mr. Pendakur knows this to, and the other fact is you do not improve society through the blanket-thinking bigotry that Cornell University displayed against Vijay’s idea.

The best way for government to make education and society in general better is to stay strictly limited in power. Only allow government the power to enforce a universal standard of human rights as a requirement for economic freedom and for personal liberty. Becoming and remaining a minimal State is the only viable way government can help.