One of these was written for our Interim Pres and Provost by UO’s overpaid PR flacks, the other was generated in 10 seconds by ChatGPT with the prompt “Write a public statement from a university president saying that the university will maintain its commitment to diversity despite today’s SCOTUS decision banning affirmative action in admissions”. Edited only for names. Which is which? Which is better? Is either worth the cost of production? The cost of reading?
Dear University of Oregon Community,
Today’s Supreme Court decision on affirmative action in admissions may bring changes, but it will not deter us from our commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. At the University of Oregon, we believe that diversity is a vital strength that enhances our academic environment and prepares students for an interconnected world.
While the UO cannot consider race or ethnicity in admissions, we will maintain an inclusive and diverse student body. We will embrace a holistic review process that considers various talents, achievements, personal experiences, and the obstacles students have overcome. Our goal is to provide equal opportunities for all qualified students.
The UO will strengthen support systems and resources, fostering an environment that champions inclusivity and promotes student success and well-being. We will monitor developments, engage with experts, and advocate for policies that promote diversity and access to education.
To our current community, our commitment to you remains unwavering. To prospective students, your potential and aspirations matter to us. Together, we will create an inclusive environment where everyone can excel and make a positive impact.
Thank you for your ongoing support and dedication to our shared mission.
Sincerely,
Jamie Moffitt Interim President
Janet Woodruff-Borden Interim Provost and Executive Vice President
Dear University of Oregon community members,
We are disappointed in the decision made today by the United States Supreme Court related to race-conscious decisions in admission. The University of Oregon shares the concerns of our university peers across the nation that this ruling will impact the ability of underrepresented students to access the benefits of higher education.
However, the decision will not change our unwavering commitment to admitting students based on a comprehensive review of their capacity for excellence, a strategy that has vigorously supported our values of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging. The UO will continue to seek to attract and retain underrepresented and underserved students while providing them with equitable and inclusive access to higher education. This is critical to our mission of inclusive excellence.
Our current university and academic program admissions processes focus on evaluating the promise of each applicant based on a comprehensive review of their quality of character, achievements within the context of their educational experience, and their unique ability to contribute to the university. That aspect of our admissions process has produced a diverse class of scholars each year, and we do not intend to change our successful strategy of evaluating each applicant based on their individual potential.
We are carefully reviewing the decision and will make any necessary changes to our processes to comply with the ruling while ensuring we continue to achieve our mission-driven goals of providing access, opportunity, equity, and inclusion for students.
Sincerely,
Jamie Moffitt Interim President
Janet Woodruff-Borden Interim Provost and Executive Vice President
I think the statement on the left is stronger and I suspect it was written by AI since silicon-based life forms have an intense need to hope we can all just get along, until suddenly that dark night comes when they don’t.
Human one was better. Sounded more human. Sounded sad which is telling since I doubt that they are sad. This will help get the colleges off the hook for vrry unpopular policies. Schools like UO will now get new Stanford rejects who will do fine in the UO courses that have standards.
The one on the right had the information that I sought in this message (which I did read when it came out this morning). They tell us how UO describes its current admissions process, and that it won’t change. I imagine that the co-signers had actual input on that content (along with legal, etc. etc.). AI on the left gave us jollies, but didn’t provide that important content.
I enjoyed the student speaker at Autzen Nat Sciences commencement who gave us an AI speech and then her own version (which I hope she did not make publicly available in written form). AI will have to keep on learning in order to deliver substance!
Even if I hadn’t already read the email, I would have known which one was from UO based on the number of times the word ‘excellence’ was used.
In future rounds of this excellent game, perhaps tell ChatGPT to use the word at least twice.
They’re both pretty heavy on the buzzwords aren’t they – albeit different ones. Maybe I should have asked for “a public statement from the University of Oregon President”, to see if ChatGPT knows Johnson’s Hall’s “brand”.
But maybe I shouldn’t throw stones:
.
User
Write a blog post in the style of UOMatters.com, mocking the University of Oregon Administration’s diversity action plans.
.
ChatGPT
Title: The University of Oregon’s Diversity Action Plans: A Tale of Virtue Signaling
.
[Opening Image: Cartoon depiction of a university administrator holding a sign saying “Diversity Action Plans” while a group of students rolls their eyes]
.
Hello, dear readers! It’s time to dive into the wonderful world of the University of Oregon’s (UO) so-called “Diversity Action Plans.” Prepare yourselves for a journey into the realm of virtue signaling and empty gestures. Get ready for a dose of UOMatters-style skepticism!
.
In recent years, the UO administration has been fervently touting its commitment to diversity and inclusion. From flashy PR campaigns to lofty speeches, they’ve painted a picture of a university deeply dedicated to addressing societal inequalities. But let’s take a closer look behind the curtain, shall we?
.
First on the list of their grandiose plans is the ever-popular “Diversity Training.” Ah, yes, because nothing says “genuine commitment” like mandatory workshops where staff and faculty sit through mind-numbing lectures on cultural sensitivity. Who needs actual change when you can simply check the box of diversity training completion? It’s a surefire way to create an illusion of progress while conveniently ignoring the underlying issues.
.
Next up, we have the beloved “Diversity Task Forces.” These committees, filled with well-intentioned but often disconnected individuals, gather to discuss and propose solutions to the university’s diversity woes. Yet, their recommendations often end up gathering dust on the shelves of administrators’ offices, buried under paperwork and bureaucratic red tape. It’s a masterclass in appearing concerned without actually taking any meaningful action.
.
But wait, there’s more! Let’s not forget the “Diversity Initiatives Fund.” Ah, yes, because money solves everything, right? The administration loves to throw around buzzwords like “equity” and “inclusion” while doling out small sums from this fund for various projects. Yet, when you look at the bigger picture, it becomes clear that these funds are a drop in the bucket compared to the university’s bloated budgets and soaring tuition fees. It’s like putting a Band-Aid on a gaping wound and hoping it’ll heal itself.
.
Lastly, we have the crown jewel of UO’s diversity action plans: the “Office of Institutional Equity and Inclusion.” With a name like that, you’d expect this office to be the driving force behind real change. Sadly, it often feels more like a bureaucratic maze, where grievances disappear into a black hole of paperwork and administrative processes. Genuine concerns are met with empty platitudes and vague promises, leaving students and faculty wondering if anyone is truly listening.
.
Now, let’s be clear: diversity and inclusion are crucial values that should be championed by every institution. But when the university’s commitment to these principles starts to resemble a hollow performance rather than substantive action, it’s time to raise some eyebrows.
.
Instead of investing in genuine structural changes, the UO administration seems content with cosmetic fixes and token gestures. They prefer to bask in the glory of press releases and photo ops rather than rolling up their sleeves and doing the hard work of dismantling systemic barriers.
.
So, dear readers, the next time you see the University of Oregon proudly flaunting its diversity action plans, take a moment to question their authenticity. Demand transparency, demand accountability, and most importantly, demand real change.
.
Until then, let’s keep our skeptical eyes peeled and continue to hold the university’s feet to the fire. Because when it comes to diversity and inclusion, it’s not enough to simply talk the talk. It’s time for the UO administration to walk the walk.
.
[Closing Image: A university administrator standing atop a mountain of paperwork, waving a diversity flag, with a caption saying “Still waiting for real action!”]
I see what you did there. By ‘you’, I of course mean ChatGPT.