White Guilt a Precondition for University By Richard Miller (London)
In this advanced stage of the decay of the West, we should not be surprised to find policies taking centre stage that attack foundation groups, and for Britain that means white British. Thus, matriculating students at St Andrews University must pass courses where they accept their “personal guilt” in order to confront their “unconscious bias” before starting their programme. But, has it been proven that these students are full of guilt? Of course, there is the argument that if they are white they are cursed with guilt, like an original sin. This belief is at the level of the belief in witches in the village causing crop failure. Only here most people are defined as “witches”! The “logical” conclusion to this is the ban all whites from the universities, including the staff, both administrative and academic. If whites are so guilty, this must be done. Do it now oh Great Lords of Evil and Darkness!
All this is happening as there was no resistance to this in the post-World War II period, with the people at the time being weary from war, and wanting to consume, producing a generation of boomers, who from the inevitable decadence that comes from affluence, began the decay of the West. Now the Great Rot is accelerating by the day.
“Matriculating students at St Andrews University must pass courses where they accept their “personal guilt” in order to confront their “unconscious bias” before starting their programme, according to test material seen by The Times.
The university in Fife, Scotland, this year became the first to ever beat Oxford or Cambridge to the number one spot on the UK’s Good University Guide and is the alma
mater of the future king, Prince William and his wife Kate, the Duchess of Cambridge.
The Times said that the top university has mandatory modules on diversity, consent, and climate change and claimed failure to pass them would mean the students cannot enrol.
In reaction, the University of St Andrews defended itself, calling the Times report “inaccurate” and claiming that the programmes have been in place for five years, most of which were designed by students, with only “one” person complaining during that time.
According to the newspaper of record’s report, in order to pass, students must agree to statements such as: “Acknowledging your personal guilt is a useful start point in overcoming unconscious bias.”
“It is important to think about and understand our own prejudices and stereotypes so we don’t treat someone else unfairly or inappropriately,” said another.
Answering ‘yes’ to the question, “Does equality mean treating everyone the same?” returns as a wrong answer, however, with the student sent the message in the online assessment: “That’s not right, in fact equality may mean treating people differently and in a way that is appropriate to their needs so that they have fair outcomes and equal opportunity.”
Too many ‘wrong’ answers will result in failure, with the option to retake the induction module.
A spokesman for the university told the newspaper of record that their students had requested the majority of the courses. In further comments to the Daily Mail, St Andrews said: “The Times report is inaccurate and misleading. These modules have been in place at St Andrews for several years.”
The spokesman went on to say that apart from the training on good academic practice, “all of these modules were introduced at St Andrews in response to clearly expressed student demand”, claiming that students had “pushed for the mandatory consent module, wrote the sustainability module, and were central members of the EDI (equality, diversity and inclusion) group which brought in the mandatory diversity module”.
“The modules were developed to align with St Andrews’ strategic priorities (diversity, inclusion, social responsibility, good academic practice, and zero tolerance for GBV [gender-based violence]) and help develop skills and awareness valuable to life at university, and beyond.
“In our experience, students recognise the value of these courses, and we have encountered only one complainer in the past five years,” the university said.
One student speaking to The Times, however, suggested that there were so few complaints because the courses put freshers — mostly 18-year-olds — in a difficult position and that they did not want to complain or potentially alienate themselves.
“It seems like they [the university] are pushing an agenda and it appears performative and contrary to academic freedom and freedom of thought,” the female student, who wished to not be named, told The Times.”
Comments