Is Cal Poly San Luis Obispo promoting racial discrimination?

September 17, 2021

Opinion by Ben Di Guglielmo

At Cal Poly San Luis Obispo’s so-called “number 1-rated orientation in the nation,” on Aug. 6 the students were separated from their parents so they could attend a presentation titled “Mustangs for Inclusive Excellence.” While I was expecting a boring lecture on racial and gender equality, I was shocked when the presentation I heard was the farthest thing from it. They weren’t advocating for racial equality at all, in fact they explicitly condemned the concept.

Presenters and Cal Poly staff members Olivia Tran and Vania Ramirez arrived on the stage and projected the summary of what they would be discussing, the slide included topics such as “microaggressions” and “Intent vs. Impact.” The presenters stated that they would be discussing inclusivity, and how to contribute to an “inclusive” environment at Cal Poly.

The next slide, labelled “Key Terms,” contrasted the meaning of the words equity and equality, as the presenters emphasized the importance of the former at the expense of the latter. They stated that equal treatment for people of all races was not good, and that our institution ought to allocate more or less resources to students (treat people unequally) according to their race, in order to promote “equal outcomes.”

The next slide, titled “Unconscious Bias” claimed that all students were secretly guilty of being racist “deep in their subconscious,” and that the racism was so innate to their being that it is “activated involuntarily.”

The presenters then went on to state that this unconscious bias led people to perform “microaggressions” against minority populations. The example they presented of one of these so called microaggressions was the expression “I don’t see color, I’m colorblind,” claiming that “white people say the phrase when they are attempting to eliminate race from the conversation.

Denying obvious racial differences shows how people in advantaged groups have the privilege of choosing when and if they want to deal with topics such as race.” Apparently, Cal Poly now believes that it is racist to not consider the race of an individual as a defining characteristic.

Before concluding, they went on to state that another microaggression is the phrase “that’s so crazy,” because it is allegedly “ableist” to refer to things or people as crazy.

Finally, to wrap up their presentation, Olivia and Vania listed “five tips” to help students absolve themselves of their racist ways. The first step being to “understand your privilege.”

Now after experiencing that seminar, it seems to me that a public institution funded with tax dollars has proclaimed its support for offering increased resources for minority students, while denying those resources to white students. Behind all of the nice words and shallow justifications, the school has openly endorsed taxpayer funded racial discrimination.

Accompany that with the fringe ideas being presented as fact such as white privilege, unconscious bias, and microaggressions, and I suppose it is no surprise that many officials within the CSU system supported the 2020 proposition 16, which sought to eliminate the anti-discrimination clause of the California constitution, in order to provide opportunities for minority students that would be withheld from whites and Asians.

Furthermore, if the school really believes in the moral goodness of these ideas, why were the parents not attending the same seminar? After all, if concepts such as racial discrimination, white privilege, and unconscious bias are important enough to be promoted to the students of Cal Poly, why were they not important enough to even mention to the parents?

Is it because the school knows that the students are more impressionable than their parents? Is it because they know deep down that these ideas are wrong, and most people know it? Is it because they don’t want the parents to know of the racist values they are trying to instill among their children?

Media Relations Director Matt Lazier declined to answer any of these questions, and instead stated that “Cal Poly is committed to diversity, ‘equity’ and inclusion and creating a campus community that is welcoming and supportive for all students… . This effort includes infusing discussions of diversity, ‘equity’ and inclusion throughout the university’s academic, extracurricular, and professional programming.”

Note the use of the word equity (unequal treatment based on race) in the response, it seems that not only does Cal Poly endorse the ideas presented to me in that seminar, but they “infuse” it throughout all university programs.

Essentially, your tax dollars are used to indoctrinate your children into believing they are all secretly racist, privileged, and that certain minority races should be given more benefits under law than presumably less “disadvantaged” races such as whites and Asians.

Your tax dollars are being used to fund a widespread indoctrination effort of racist and un-American ideas in the youth, all while they politely shuffle you into the other room so you remain blissfully unaware.

Ben Di Guglielmo, 18, is an incoming freshman at Cal Poly. Di Guglielmo grew up in Riverside and graduated from Riverside Polytechnic High School earlier this year.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Racial equality is legislated, because it’s socially not observed. Some may say that bias exist because racial equality is institutionalized. I argue that inequalities existed long before racial equality became a issue. Personally, I’d strive for racial transparency, since “equality” is a difficult concept to quantify or measure. Everything in nature seeks balance, racial inequality is no different.

Interesting to see this from the same school that a few years ago had a noose hanging around one of the AG residences …

I love being a white male.

Is? You got to be kidding. They state “equal treatment for people of all races was not good.” Uh yeah, that’s how Jim Crow laws started – not treating all races equally. Dang, this isn’t rocket science. There’s a concerted effort to divide us. This is definitely part of it and the opposite of being inclusive. Same cr** from CRT.

Dr Martin Luther King Jr. said it best: “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

You would think that a claim related to higher education be understanding that we are all of the same race. People are people, cats are cats, dogs are dogs, and among each race are different breeds. Among the different breeds, they can cross and that’s ok but to falsely use the term racial discrimination among humans is plain ignorant and unaccepting that we have different breeds among us. Frankly the negro breed is far superior to the causation breed at many things and given the opportunity maybe everything. It is breed discrimination not racial discrimination that we live with. It has been and currently is the suppression of various breeds that keep the those above this discussion in control. Now if you want to call it as it is, just categorize (all facets) and expose the percentages compared to the world population percentages. If you truly want to represent higher education, do the math and ignore the word spinners.

I’m not surprised of the displeasure or disagreement with my comment of different breeds among the human race. Boy would that change things at the Olympics and sports in general. Some don’t even like the male, female separation in sports and now it is transgenders competing in the female class. How would the NBA or the NFL deal with breed specific teams even though it is trending that way either by default or the recruiters spending their time in Africa (no joke, they actually do). Yes modern man (person) will eventually publicly accept the fact that we have competitive specific breeds of people just like there are competitive specific breeds of horses, etc.

“By the end of this paper, readers will understand how the assumption that human races are the same as dog breeds is a racist strategy for justifying social, political, and economic inequality. ”

In 1956, evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane posed a question to anthropologists: “Are the biological differences between human groups comparable with those between groups of domestic animals such as greyhounds and bulldogs…?” It reads as if it were posted on social media today. The analogy comparing human races to dog breeds is not only widespread in history and pop culture, but also sounds like scientific justification for eschewing the social construction of race, or for holding racist beliefs about human nature. Here we answer Haldane’s question in an effort to improve the public understanding of human biological variation and “race”—two phenomena that are not synonymous. Speaking to everyone without expert levels of familiarity with this material, we investigate whether the dog breed analogy for human race stands up to biology. It does not.

Groups of humans that are culturally labeled as “races” differ in population structure, genotype–phenotype relationships, and phenotypic diversity from breeds of dogs in unsurprising ways, given how artificial selection has shaped the evolution of dogs, not humans. Our demonstration complements the vast body of existing knowledge about how human “races” differ in fundamental sociocultural, historical, and political ways from categories of nonhuman animals.

By the end of this paper, readers will understand how the assumption that human races are the same as dog breeds is a racist strategy for justifying social, political, and economic inequality. Likewise, current arguments that appeal to science to push the “reality” of biologically-based human race, or “race realism,” are key to white supremacist politics.

Equating the differences between two human beings to the idealized differences between a greyhound and a bulldog is the province of poetry or prejudice, not science.

And another:

As a researcher and teacher, Holly Dunsworth enjoys poking holes in misconceptions about human evolution her students bring into the classroom.

This time, Dunsworth is targeting a recurring popular evolutionary analogy that compares human races with dog breeds, one that may sound innocent and scientific on the surface but carries deep racist undertones.

Because I recognize different breeds within the human race that I do not hold the hatred of a racist. Fortunately I am proud of my breed and recognize other breeds for their differences. I know that our differences are what hold us together to create the best that society has to offer. Additionally nobody should believe everything they read, we must seek to understand for ourselves.

Good for you, Ben, for speaking truth to power.

If you get any pushback from Cal Poly administrators, please let me know.

I hope you are considering joining student clubs in which you might make a difference.

If not, please consider the Cal Poly College Republicans and the Cal Poly chapter of TPUSA, for example.

Best wishes for a great start to the 2021-22 academic year.

We are fortunate to have students like you on our Cal Poly campus!

My son was watching this from home, it’s something all students have to do before starting classes.

There was one part where it mentioned you have “privilege” if you are white & hetro. I walked out of the room at that point. Neither of those things can I change. I can treat others as I would like to be treated.

Ben, did you learn anything from the workshop? Your preconceived animosity really shows. This essay shows your privilege to have no accountability. Perfect material for the frat club.

All I took away from this is that Ben would like his parents to be at college with him. So no surprise that he is a bit confused by hearing some new viewpoints.