This is part of the systematically disingenuous conversations we seem to always have in the United States. The advocates of a policy claim that our society is profoundly unjust and needs to be radically changed. They implement policies in that direction. Upon being criticized they claim that their policies are nothing, really, and anyone who's objecting to them is "far-right" or merely upset about the erosion of their privilege. The policy changes are trivial, innocuous, barely worth discussing!
Either your policy is a radical change to the ways institutions operate or it's not. If it's not, and you don't want to fight about it, then let's just agree to go back to the way things were 30-40 years ago, and we can stop discussing it. It's no big deal either way, right?
Two psychologist run a study where making CVs gendered from their similar gender blind equivalent shifted the ratio of the preferred CVs from roughly 50/50 to the woman getting picked 66% of the time for a STEM related field. N was around 2000, higher than previous studies with max N=800 that showed anti woman discrimination. Of course their colleagues and journalists smeared them as 'far right', 'racist', but also 'transphobic' and 'climate change deniers' . You can add those two to the mix of counter arguments
I disagree that the “competitive strength of America is dependent on the ideals of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.” The competitive strength of America was world class for almost 250 years before anyone even knew of the terms.
The answer to your question is simple: focus on individual merit and contributions, not on group membership and distribution. DEI tries to undermine that.
DEI is not against discrimination. It is based on discrimination and requires censorship to maintain it.
Merit is the only viable principle to have for hiring, firing and promotions within organizations without discrimination. Merit, by definition, is opposed to discrimination.
Rather than vague generalities, please address the actual points that I made in this article and why you think that they are correct.
I have no idea what “The ideology and censorship of today's DEI is not equivalent to the fundamentals” means.
If it is true that “ Diversity Equity Inclusion = Liberte Egalite Fraternite,” then we can just eliminate DEI and go back the old way of doing things. Making decisions based on Merit creates just the right amount of Diversity and no more.
The term “systemic bias” is just a meaningless buzzword to avoid acknowledging that Inequality has been the human condition in all societies since Hunter Gathers.
“Unity is born out of acceptance” sounds like a very Totalitarian view point. What happens to people who do not accept the type of unity that you want?
Until you come to accept Inequality as inevitable, then you will always be tempted by Totalitarian ideas. And, by the way, Liberte Egalite Fraternite was used as a moral justification for the real Reign of Terror in 1793-94.
Treat individuals as individuals, and not as members of groups.
If I can steel-man my take on your position, it is that you are endorsing merit, but that you believe systematic or institutional biases are undermining the ideal. Taking it a bit further, you seem to be suggesting that the proponents of DEI are attempting to address this impartiality and bias, but that they may be going overboard — taking things to excess.
Is this a fair summary of your position? If not, how would you clarify it? Most importantly, can you provide some examples of these systematic biases? This might lead to more productive dialogue.
This is part of the systematically disingenuous conversations we seem to always have in the United States. The advocates of a policy claim that our society is profoundly unjust and needs to be radically changed. They implement policies in that direction. Upon being criticized they claim that their policies are nothing, really, and anyone who's objecting to them is "far-right" or merely upset about the erosion of their privilege. The policy changes are trivial, innocuous, barely worth discussing!
Either your policy is a radical change to the ways institutions operate or it's not. If it's not, and you don't want to fight about it, then let's just agree to go back to the way things were 30-40 years ago, and we can stop discussing it. It's no big deal either way, right?
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/the-elastic-ideology
Yep, that style of argumentation is endemic among supporters of DEI.
Unfortunately, it has been quite effective at winning over the Center-Left.
And we got a fair amount of that in this comments section…
Two psychologist run a study where making CVs gendered from their similar gender blind equivalent shifted the ratio of the preferred CVs from roughly 50/50 to the woman getting picked 66% of the time for a STEM related field. N was around 2000, higher than previous studies with max N=800 that showed anti woman discrimination. Of course their colleagues and journalists smeared them as 'far right', 'racist', but also 'transphobic' and 'climate change deniers' . You can add those two to the mix of counter arguments
Interesting. Do you have a link for that?
Wow! Fantastic article. Timely too.
I have never had any respect for Trump, but I certainly share his hate toward DEI. Perhaps the time is now for reclaiming liberalism from the woke.
The central irony is that as flawed as Trump is, he is preferable to four more years of national DEI policy.
Simply put, very many Americans, even ones who did not vote for Trump either time before, intuitively recognized this. It's *why* he won.
https://youtu.be/pukU3fmFXmY?si=ch7YvhW2YKp20lDQ, I am on phone now but links of all studies are provided somewhere there
I disagree that the “competitive strength of America is dependent on the ideals of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.” The competitive strength of America was world class for almost 250 years before anyone even knew of the terms.
The answer to your question is simple: focus on individual merit and contributions, not on group membership and distribution. DEI tries to undermine that.
DEI is not against discrimination. It is based on discrimination and requires censorship to maintain it.
Merit is the only viable principle to have for hiring, firing and promotions within organizations without discrimination. Merit, by definition, is opposed to discrimination.
E Pluribus Unum
Rather than vague generalities, please address the actual points that I made in this article and why you think that they are correct.
I have no idea what “The ideology and censorship of today's DEI is not equivalent to the fundamentals” means.
If it is true that “ Diversity Equity Inclusion = Liberte Egalite Fraternite,” then we can just eliminate DEI and go back the old way of doing things. Making decisions based on Merit creates just the right amount of Diversity and no more.
The term “systemic bias” is just a meaningless buzzword to avoid acknowledging that Inequality has been the human condition in all societies since Hunter Gathers.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-achieving-equality-is-an-impossible
“Unity is born out of acceptance” sounds like a very Totalitarian view point. What happens to people who do not accept the type of unity that you want?
Until you come to accept Inequality as inevitable, then you will always be tempted by Totalitarian ideas. And, by the way, Liberte Egalite Fraternite was used as a moral justification for the real Reign of Terror in 1793-94.
Treat individuals as individuals, and not as members of groups.
Byron,
If I can steel-man my take on your position, it is that you are endorsing merit, but that you believe systematic or institutional biases are undermining the ideal. Taking it a bit further, you seem to be suggesting that the proponents of DEI are attempting to address this impartiality and bias, but that they may be going overboard — taking things to excess.
Is this a fair summary of your position? If not, how would you clarify it? Most importantly, can you provide some examples of these systematic biases? This might lead to more productive dialogue.