<p>
Seems like grounds for a lawsuit here. No only does the director say what his policies are, the results confirm it.</p>
<p>“Colored people?” Haven’t heard that term in a long time. Seems Gobin could use some diversity training.</p>
<p>As for the idea of hiring only people of color to maintain diversity, seems well intentioned, but misguided and also nonsensical. </p>
<p>I’m left wondering how Gobin got his job.</p>
<p>Wow–he seems to have been able to manage to offend everyone at once. I concur with NSM’s wondering.</p>
<p>If someone in my company did this they’d almost certainly be fired. It’s racist plain and simple. I wonder what his definition of ‘colored’ is - not a term you much anymore. I suspect that he really means anything other than white given the makeup of UCLA.</p>
<p>hahaha “colored people”…they haven’t called us that in a long long time…before he starts making comments like that, he should maybe update his vocabulary…ha</p>
<p>I guess the NAACP better get with the times or get sued.</p>
<p>He probably meant “people of color.” I don’t think he is racist against racial minorities…seems to be the opposite in this situation. If the NAACP is going to fight this, it should be due to the discrimination based on race (which I doubt they care about since it is white people getting discriminated against). The term “colored People,” as outdated of a term, kind of sums of his hiring policy.</p>
<p>Mr. Gobin’s statement, and his explanation/justification for saying it is so wrong on so many levels, I’d hardly know where to start to address it. Hard to fathom such stupidity…</p>
<p>What’s the difference between “colored people” and “people of color?”
Could it be he was misquoted? Still his statement is deserving of mockery, but…</p>
<p>People of Color= modern, encompasses all people who are not caucasian. It tends to be a term used in Calif.</p>
<p>“Colored People” – Histoically used to refer to African Americans. Originally was considered an improvement over the “n” word, which is how the NAACP got its name. Later, “Negro” was considered an improvement over “colored,” which fell out of favor as eventually did “Negro.”</p>
<p>I imagine that the person could have been misquoted. If he lives in Calif., my guess is that he said, “people of color” and the reporter may have written it down incorrectly particularly if the reporter was from another part of the country.</p>
<p>Still, he should be hiring a diverse staff and a staff skilled in working with a diverse student body. That doesn’t mean, however, that he should only hire people of color for staffers.</p>
<p>Oh sorry…I didn’t use my sarcasm font. I, uh, understand the difference and was just pointing out that it is possible that the guy was misquoted. He should still be mocked for being clueless, but we should not assume anybody under the age of 50 would use the term colored.</p>
<p>How is Mr. Gobin’s comment in any way acceptable?</p>
<p>Unless of course they are South African, where “colored” has a whole nuther meaning.</p>
<p>Having a dorm staff that’s similar to the kids living there is one thing, although you’d like to think that in the year 2007 you could get that by simply picking good future RA’s and that the racial balance would take care of itself. However flat-out saying “we don’t hire white people” should be offensive to everyone.</p>