A sad casualty of DEI/Woke at Cambridge University

[Politesse]

When you argue for racially discriminating against Asian and/or non-Hispanic white Americans in order to make more positions available for African- and/or Hispanic- and/or Native- and/or Pacific Islander Americans, that's not choosing inclusion over exclusion. Happy?

That's utter nonsense. I oppose you assholes trying to run black people out of the universities. I have never argued for racial discrimination of any kind, and never will.

 

[Politesse]

That, sir, is an argument for racially discriminating against Asian and/or non-Hispanic white Americans in order to make more positions available for African- and/or Hispanic- and/or Native- and/or Pacific Islander Americans.

If that is my "argument", then why did I say... literally none of that whatsoever?

 

[Bomb#20]

Good! If it is wicked to choose reason over self-interested folly, humanity over inhumanity, science over invention, inclusion over exclusion, I am wicked through and through and will continue to be so.

But you don't choose those things. Inventing the baseless strawmen you impute to your opponents is choosing folly over reason and invention over science. When you argue for racially discriminating against Asian Americans in order to make more positions available for African Americans, that's not choosing inclusion over exclusion. It's choosing inclusion of an African American over inclusion of an Asian American; and it's choosing exclusion of an Asian American over exclusion of an African American. In order to choose inclusion over exclusion you'd need to instead argue for increasing the number of available positions. Your implication that excluding an Asian American from a position doesn't count as exclusion because he's the same race as a bunch of completely different people who weren't denied positions, and including them somehow magically includes him by proxy, is folly, not reason, and it's invention, not science. And your claim that what you are trying to do to that Asian American qualifies as choosing "humanity over inhumanity" dehumanizes him.

Here is the critical thing. Terms like "racism" and "discrimination" in general carry a certain weight. In the US they refer to very specific Government endorsed policies meant to segregate minorities from the white population/society. So when the terms "racism" and "discrimination" are tossed around, it feels cheap as heck. DEI is not looking to restrict Asians or Whites from general society, working professions, or schools. DEI at most is thumbing the scale at times.

One can argue for or against the morality of DEI policies, pros/cons, costs/benefits, but to consider it "dehumanization" is <expletive deleted> ignorant.

Two things. First, grow a reading comprehension. My post was a structured argument, consisting of sentences, with actual subjects and predicates. "An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition." The definite proposition to be established is right there in the very first sentence: "But you don't choose those things." Poli does not do what he describes himself as doing. That's all. But you appear to have decided what I must have meant by throwing the entire paragraph into a blender and setting it on max. I did not in any way, shape or form suggest that DEI is dehumanization. I accused Poli of dehumanizing those Asian Americans that DEI practices exclude from employment opportunities, no one else; and I accused him not because of his support for DEI but because of the dehumanizing rhetoric he wrote -- his characterization of that support as choosing "humanity over inhumanity". It is perfectly feasible to argue for racial preferences honestly and forthrightly -- by offering some explanation for why the benefit to the favored applicant and/or to society as a whole outweighs the harm to the disfavored applicant -- without implying the latter doesn't count as part of humanity.

Second: your overall discussion is bollocks. In English the terms "racism" and "discrimination" do not mean what you propose -- you're relying on Humpty Dumpty definitions from a narrow echo chamber of political extremists, constructed to make them something non-white people by definition can't do in order to justify endless double standards and special-pleading fallacies. "Racism" is prejudice against people because of their ethnicity or perceived ethnicity, or hostility toward them, or viewing them as inferiors. "Discrimination" is treating an individual differently from how you would treat another individual; "racially discriminating" is doing it because of his ethnicity or perceived ethnicity.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Equal Employment Opportunity - FindLaw

FindLaw provides a summary and the complete text of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.

www.findlaw.com

"Sec. 703 Discrimination Because of Race, Color, Religion, Sex, or National Origin
This section covers unlawful employment practices in hiring and firing. Section 703 excludes merit-based practices that may appear discriminatory if such was not the intent.

(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer–

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."​

"Thumbing the scale" because of race is discrimination because of race -- in plain English, and in the way the term was generally understood in 1964, and in U.S. civil rights law. And when the scale being thumbed is a hiring decision, it's illegal in the U.S. So if you intended to suggest the 1964 Civil Rights Act was only meant to protect minorities from racial preferences and not the majority too, that's Trumpian in the violence it does to the clear text of the law -- it's on a level with claiming the 14th Amendment was only supposed to make ex-slaves citizens so the US-born children of illegal immigrants don't qualify.

So no, I was not cheaply tossing around "discrimination"; I was using it correctly, exactly the way normal English speakers understand it, for exactly what it means in the law.

As for cheaply tossing around "racism", quote where I did that. If you have a problem with the careless use of that word, feel free to take it up with DrZ. But if you want to be fair-minded about that, first take it up with Poli and Toni and some others among your allies. There's a parable about eyes, motes and beams that comes to mind.

The dehumanization comes in looking at some African American candidate for whatever getting in over a white or Asian simply because he is black, and ignoring their qualifications. The med school applicant that busted their butt, got very good grades, did community service, impressive recommendation letters, played on the volleyball team, and interned each summer. All you people see is the "blackness" of their application.

"You people". Quote one of "us people" doing that. For extra credit (not that you'll get the basic credit), quote me.

 

[Elixir]

woke is a memetic poison that turns otherwise reasonable and intelligent people stupid.

If that’s true you must have overdosed yourself on it.
It doesn’t even work as a metaphor -woke has no objective existence beyond dark spots on paper or screen. Yet this imagined beast is capable of withering dicks worldwide. You poor baby.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Good! If it is wicked to choose reason over self-interested folly, humanity over inhumanity, science over invention, inclusion over exclusion, I am wicked through and through and will continue to be so.

But you don't choose those things. Inventing the baseless strawmen you impute to your opponents is choosing folly over reason and invention over science. When you argue for racially discriminating against Asian Americans in order to make more positions available for African Americans, that's not choosing inclusion over exclusion. It's choosing inclusion of an African American over inclusion of an Asian American; and it's choosing exclusion of an Asian American over exclusion of an African American. In order to choose inclusion over exclusion you'd need to instead argue for increasing the number of available positions. Your implication that excluding an Asian American from a position doesn't count as exclusion because he's the same race as a bunch of completely different people who weren't denied positions, and including them somehow magically includes him by proxy, is folly, not reason, and it's invention, not science. And your claim that what you are trying to do to that Asian American qualifies as choosing "humanity over inhumanity" dehumanizes him.

Here is the critical thing. Terms like "racism" and "discrimination" in general carry a certain weight. In the US they refer to very specific Government endorsed policies meant to segregate minorities from the white population/society. So when the terms "racism" and "discrimination" are tossed around, it feels cheap as heck. DEI is not looking to restrict Asians or Whites from general society, working professions, or schools. DEI at most is thumbing the scale at times.

One can argue for or against the morality of DEI policies, pros/cons, costs/benefits, but to consider it "dehumanization" is <expletive deleted> ignorant.

Two things. First, grow a reading comprehension. My post was a structured argument, consisting of sentences, with actual subjects and predicates. "An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition." The definite proposition to be established is right there in the very first sentence: "But you don't choose those things." Poli does not do what he describes himself as doing. That's all. But you appear to have decided what I must have meant by throwing the entire paragraph into a blender and setting it on max. I did not in any way, shape or form suggest that DEI is dehumanization. I accused Poli of dehumanizing those Asian Americans that DEI practices exclude from employment opportunities, no one else; and I accused him not because of his support for DEI but because of the dehumanizing rhetoric he wrote -- his characterization of that support as choosing "humanity over inhumanity". It is perfectly feasible to argue for racial preferences honestly and forthrightly -- by offering some explanation for why the benefit to the favored applicant and/or to society as a whole outweighs the harm to the disfavored applicant -- without implying the latter doesn't count as part of humanity.

Firstly, I'll recant based on my misunderstanding of what you said.

The dehumanization comes in looking at some African American candidate for whatever getting in over a white or Asian simply because he is black, and ignoring their qualifications. The med school applicant that busted their butt, got very good grades, did community service, impressive recommendation letters, played on the volleyball team, and interned each summer. All you people see is the "blackness" of their application.

"You people". Quote one of "us people" doing that. For extra credit (not that you'll get the basic credit), quote me.

This entire thread and especially the spin-off DEI thread is about it. If the prof wasn't black, this would never have been a thread to start with.

Additionally, every time people lop out average scores, it is about that.

Look at these stats, it proves blacks are being unfairly preferred because of these two metrics!

Particularly when the stats overall imply better grades mean better acceptance rates.

 

[Toni]

woke is a memetic poison that turns otherwise reasonable and intelligent people stupid.

If that’s true you must have overdosed yourself on it.
It doesn’t even work as a metaphor -woke has no objective existence beyond dark spots on paper or screen. Yet this imagined beast is capable of withering dicks worldwide. You poor baby.

Sshhhh! Not so loud! Dr. Z needs his zzzzzz ‘s!

 

[Bomb#20]

DEI is racist. It reduces people to a skin colour, making all other attributes irrelevant. One could try to argue its benefits. But that doesn't change the racism of it. Would anyone argue against this? Its also sexist.

Okay, I'll have a go at it. Others have pointed out some side-issues so I'll leave those aside and go for what looks like your central point. To quote myself,

"Racism" is prejudice against people because of their ethnicity or perceived ethnicity, or hostility toward them, or viewing them as inferiors.

To my eye, racial preferences per se for the groups who appear to need them don't look like they qualify. The purpose isn't to hurt the groups doing better than others -- that's a side effect. They're targeted for harm because racial preferences are a zero-sum game and there's nobody else to take the slots from. It's kind of like a government making taxpayers pay for the government's own mistakes and wrongdoing -- it's not because they think taxpayers are inferior or whatever; it's just that they can't get the money from anyone else.

(That's not to say that specific DEI arguments or proponents aren't racist; many of them certainly are. The suggestion that comes up here from time to time to the effect that white people deserve it because of slavery and Jim Crow and so forth is obviously racist, for instance; but that's case-by-case, not a fault in affirmative action per se.)

 

[Toni]

Here's the thing about race and achievement in the US: My parents were poor during the Great Depression which is significantly different than poor today because there were zero social safety net programs that could have helped their families. Each had a parent who had a serious, debilitating and chronic illness which killed them at a young age, leaving my parents each to grow up in a single parent home. The highest educational attainment of my grandparents was completion of the 8th grade, although my grandfather helped all of his younger siblings obtain college educations. At the same time, he tried to convince my father to drop out of high school at age 16 because he needed the help on the farm. My father finished high school to spite his father. Dad was quite bright and under different circumstances, I think he would have become an engineer or an architect. I think he would have been happier as an architect but probably the machismo of engineering would have won out.

My father started out at the company he worked for until retirement at age 18 or 19, as a warehouse worker. He worked his way up, steadily, and eventually managed a bunch of accounts and trained VPs to do their job, which he was not qualified to do because he lacked a college degree. He did some product development and held a patent (or his company did for his new product). My parents managed to have my mother stay home to raise the family, after the first few years, and like now, daycare was difficult to find so: it was stay at home. Which was difficult because my mother knew she should be grateful--her own mother scrubbed hospital floors to support her ailing husband and 4 kids, so it was a luxury to stay at home. But Mom wasn't really suited for the work. Still, my parents eventualy managed to purchase a very modest ranch home in the early 60's. My parents instilled in all of us kids the same notion of excelling in school the way stereotypical Asian parents do, minus the money for lessons or cram schools, etc. I did not realize until well into adulthood that my parents were obnoxious in how much they bragged about us kids because we never heard an actual word of praise or pride. It was more like coming home with a 97% and being asked to account for the missing 3 percent. I remember once getting an A- in elementary school and being afraid to go home with my report card. But they had good reason: My dad's company sponsored scholarships for the high achieving offspring of employees. That was the only way we would be able to go to college. And there was no question of whether or not we would go.

My dad was fairly bigoted ( I loved him and he's been dead for more than 20 years and so I'm soft peddling things here) and he used to feel it was unfair that black people had all sorts of advantages he never had (which was hard to imagine which advantages those were. My mother's stepfather, we came to learn long after he died, was a member of the KKK, so that was alive and active when/where he grew up. And where i did. My parents shielded us from a lot but I heard rumors that were apparently true that a couple of times black families attempted to move into our town or at least the school district and had crosses burnt in front of their homes). I guess he meant Affirmative Action; and being allowed to attend the same underfunded schools that we attended, until they bought their house in an all white town. I used to look at him and think: I'm so proud and impressed with all that you achieved but imagine trying to do that while black. It would not have been possible. It simply would not have been. Dad felt his company was progressive because they hired an occasional black woman to work as a secretary. I tried to talk with him about how much harder it would have been (ie impossible) had he been black but he was convinced no one had it harder than he did growing up. And friends, things were really tough for him and for my mother. I remember well when both sets of grandparents got indoor plumbing. My dad's stepmother cooked on a coal stove that heated half of the house and another one heated the other half. My dad and uncle slept in an unheated attic space. Christmas was an orange and some nuts in the bottom of a sock. They ate from the garden and hunted and fished and foraged in the woods. Milk from the cows and later, some meat from pigs as my grandfather could not keep up with the milking after Dad left home. Eggs from the chickens, and extra eggs and extra produce sold from the kitchen. Grandpa gave me 4 silver dollars for high school graduation. I am still ashamed that my father somehow felt he had to explain that was all my grandfather had to give me. I knew. We never talked about money but I knew. I hate to think what my grandfather had to give up to give me those four silver coins.

So for my parents to be able to purchase a home not on a farmstead and to send their kids to college (on scholarships and we were responsible for the rest of the funding) was truly a miracle of hard work, determination and big dreams for their kids.

And if we had been black, none of that would have been possible.

It's easy to think with my nice education and my nicely educated spouse and kids and nice life and plenty of friends of various backgrounds that racism no longer exists or is no longer significant. Very easy to do if you don't actually look around or listen to what people say. I'm ashamed that for a good long while, I allowed myself to forget about racism because the small town we live in was so completely white (except for a handful of faculty, mostly foreign born) that I could literally go months and never see anyone with coloring darker than my own. I mean, I knew it existed but I personally had to deal very little with it, even the inconvenience of witnessing someone being treated poorly or more likely hearing about it.

It's so easy to discount what you don't have to deal with yourself or what does not affect you or your family. So easy to take for granted.

White people struggling to tread water, never mind, progressing is not the same thing as trying to keep your head above water while black. Because when you work so hard just to survive and to provide a better life for your family, it can be hard to imagine anyone working harder than you do.

 

[Bomb#20]

The dehumanization comes in looking at some African American candidate for whatever getting in over a white or Asian simply because he is black, and ignoring their qualifications. The med school applicant that busted their butt, got very good grades, did community service, impressive recommendation letters, played on the volleyball team, and interned each summer. All you people see is the "blackness" of their application.

"You people". Quote one of "us people" doing that. For extra credit (not that you'll get the basic credit), quote me.

This entire thread and especially the spin-off DEI thread is about it.

That's not a quote.

If the prof wasn't black, this would never have been a thread to start with.

And? If the prof hadn't lied and plagiarized his way into the job, this would never have been a thread to start with. If the university hadn't set aside the meagerness of his academic record on account of his being black, this would never have been a thread to start with. The people you're calling "you people" saw all that in addition to seeing his blackness and they based their comments on it. So the facts do not support your allegation that all "you people" see is the "blackness" of their application.

Additionally, every time people lop out average scores, it is about that.

Look at these stats, it proves blacks are being unfairly preferred because of these two metrics!

No. This is a point that's been made over and over and you keep not understanding it over and over. Every time people lop out average scores, it is about "Look at these stats, it proves blacks are being unfairly preferred because of these two metrics unless there's some third metric in use that blacks are systematically better at. What is that metric?". You keep skipping that last part, and it looks like you skip it because you don't understand it so you assume it isn't important. It's important.

Particularly when the stats overall imply better grades mean better acceptance rates.

You're perceiving that because you're mixing all the different stats together into one massive pool that washes out the detailed information. People in total who have better grades have better acceptance rates. But if you split it out by grades it isn't the case. Eyeballing the table, it looks like Asians with a GPA of 3.64 have a lower acceptance rate than blacks with a GPA of 3.59.

 

[Politesse]

people you're calling "you people" saw all that in addition to seeing his blackness and they based their comments on it.

Well, that's a load of horse shit. People who are upset about "DEI and Woke" usually have no access whatsoever to anyone's test scores or any other metric. In the US, any such information is usually private information rigidly protected by federal law. But they are always outraged to see Black professors, especially Black female professors. Not because they know them to be underqualified, but because they believe them to be.

 

[Bomb#20]

What I wrote:

If the prof wasn't black, this would never have been a thread to start with.

And? If the prof hadn't lied and plagiarized his way into the job, this would never have been a thread to start with. If the university hadn't set aside the meagerness of his academic record on account of his being black, this would never have been a thread to start with. The people you're calling "you people" saw all that in addition to seeing his blackness and they based their comments on it. So the facts do not support your allegation that all "you people" see is the "blackness" of their application.

How Politesse snipped it:

people you're calling "you people" saw all that in addition to seeing his blackness and they based their comments on it.

Well, that's a load of horse <expletive deleted>. People who are upset about "DEI and Woke" usually have no access whatsoever to anyone's test scores or any other metric. In the US, any such information is usually private information rigidly protected by federal law. But they are always outraged to see Black professors, especially Black female professors. Not because they know them to be underqualified, but because they believe them to be.

JH and I were discussing a British professor, not US students, and we were discussing this thread, not "People who are upset about DEI and Woke". Access to Mr. Arday's test scores isn't really the issue here, and the facts about his academic record were widely reported in the media and referenced in the OP.

 

[Bomb#20]

When you argue for racially discriminating against Asian and/or non-Hispanic white Americans in order to make more positions available for African- and/or Hispanic- and/or Native- and/or Pacific Islander Americans, that's not choosing inclusion over exclusion. Happy?

That's utter nonsense. I oppose you assholes trying to run black people out of the universities.

That's utter nonsense. None of us "assholes" ever tried to run black people out of the universities. You made that up. In the first place, nobody here has proposed firing anyone for having been a "DEI hire" -- employment contracts don't go away just because they were entered for a suspect reason. In the second place, even if we metaphorically expand "run people out" to include not hiring them for a suspect reason in the first place, nobody has proposed not hiring black people. Plenty of black people do not need a DEI thumb on the scale to get hired into the universities. And in the third place, if we metaphorically expand "run people out" a second time, to include hiring fewer of them in the first place, then your attempt to suppress opposition to DEI policies by means of trumped-up character assassination constitutes you "asshole" trying to run Asian and/or white people out of the universities. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. And in the fourth place, you have no grounds for including me in the "you assholes". I don't see stopping DEI on the upthread list of the ideas I've defended. If you think I defended it, quote me.

I have never argued for racial discrimination of any kind, and never will.

I showed my work. I exhibited the step-by-step derivation from what you wrote to what it implied. That's how logic works. Feel free to point out an error.

That, sir, is an argument for racially discriminating against Asian and/or non-Hispanic white Americans in order to make more positions available for African- and/or Hispanic- and/or Native- and/or Pacific Islander Americans.

If that is my "argument", then why did I say... literally none of that whatsoever?

Maybe because you're gaslighting us. More likely because if you said that literally it wouldn't have been an ad hominem, and we know how much you love those.

 

[Bomb#20]

I wonder if English is Dr Z’s first language.
What part of diversity equity and/or inclusion is racist? Obviously, none. Maybe those words translate differently in Norwedish or whatever Z’s first language might be.

Norwedish is my favorite new word!

But in American English, diversity equality and inclusion are the polar opposites of racism:

Diversity is a fact that needs to be recognized. We should tolerate diversity. That’s not racist.
Equality is a desirable paradigm - unless you’re a racist.
Inclusion would be an optimal outcome of diversity and equality. Unless you’re a racist.

The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. You should be wary of taking ideologies' names for themselves at face value.

The "Diversity" in DEI isn't about expanding diversity, let alone tolerating it; as noted upthread it's a rebranding of affirmative action in the wake of the Bakke SC decision. Funny story about that: the government medical school that illegally rejected Bakke was motivated by the opposite of diversity. Though the court case turned on the racial discrimination because that was what was legally actionable at the time, Davis's actual motive for rejecting Bakke from its quota for whites was that he was too old -- they wanted a classful of 100% twenty-somethings and Bakke was over thirty. Diversity my ass. But age discrimination wasn't illegal yet so Bakke was put in the position of needing to sue over the racial quota in order to get in.

Equality isn't what the E is for, as Emily pointed out. See the Sowell video upthread for one black man's take on the desirability of Equity as a paradigm. If you think he's racist, what's your evidence?

Inclusion is a zero-sum game unless you're increasing the number of positions. Anyone you include means you exclude someone else. So how the heck are Diversity/Affirmative-Action and Equality/Equity supposed to produce an iota more inclusion than exclusion as their outcome?

Is it not amazing how racists go around calling other people “racist” for objecting to racism?

Now there's a two-edged sword. He'd probably say the same of you. Pro-DEI folks advocating for racial discrimination keep going around calling anti-DEI folks "racist" for objecting to racial discrimination. Anti-DEI folks advocating for colorblindness keep going around calling pro-DEI folks "racist" for objecting to colorblindness. One set seem to think racial discrimination is racist and the other set seem to think colorblindness is racist. I wonder who can make the better case...

 

[Politesse]

When you argue for racially discriminating against Asian and/or non-Hispanic white Americans in order to make more positions available for African- and/or Hispanic- and/or Native- and/or Pacific Islander Americans, that's not choosing inclusion over exclusion. Happy?

That's utter nonsense. I oppose you assholes trying to run black people out of the universities.

That's utter nonsense. None of us "assholes" ever tried to run black people out of the universities. You made that up. In the first place, nobody here has proposed firing anyone for having been a "DEI hire" -- employment contracts don't go away just because they were entered for a suspect reason. In the second place, even if we metaphorically expand "run people out" to include not hiring them for a suspect reason in the first place, nobody has proposed not hiring black people. Plenty of black people do not need a DEI thumb on the scale to get hired into the universities. And in the third place, if we metaphorically expand "run people out" a second time, to include hiring fewer of them in the first place, then your attempt to suppress opposition to DEI policies by means of trumped-up character assassination constitutes you "asshole" trying to run Asian and/or white people out of the universities. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. And in the fourth place, you have no grounds for including me in the "you assholes". I don't see stopping DEI on the upthread list of the ideas I've defended. If you think I defended it, quote me.

I have never argued for racial discrimination of any kind, and never will.

I showed my work. I exhibited the step-by-step derivation from what you wrote to what it implied. That's how logic works. Feel free to point out an error.

That, sir, is an argument for racially discriminating against Asian and/or non-Hispanic white Americans in order to make more positions available for African- and/or Hispanic- and/or Native- and/or Pacific Islander Americans.

If that is my "argument", then why did I say... literally none of that whatsoever?

Maybe because you're gaslighting us. More likely because if you said that literally it wouldn't have been an ad hominem, and we know how much you love those.

No one is fooled.

 

[DrZoidberg]

DEI is racist. It reduces people to a skin colour, making all other attributes irrelevant. One could try to argue its benefits. But that doesn't change the racism of it. Would anyone argue against this? Its also sexist.

Okay, I'll have a go at it. Others have pointed out some side-issues so I'll leave those aside and go for what looks like your central point. To quote myself,

​

"Racism" is prejudice against people because of their ethnicity or perceived ethnicity, or hostility toward them, or viewing them as inferiors.

To my eye, racial preferences per se for the groups who appear to need them don't look like they qualify. The purpose isn't to hurt the groups doing better than others -- that's a side effect. They're targeted for harm because racial preferences are a zero-sum game and there's nobody else to take the slots from. It's kind of like a government making taxpayers pay for the government's own mistakes and wrongdoing -- it's not because they think taxpayers are inferior or whatever; it's just that they can't get the money from anyone else.

(That's not to say that specific DEI arguments or proponents aren't racist; many of them certainly are. The suggestion that comes up here from time to time to the effect that white people deserve it because of slavery and Jim Crow and so forth is obviously racist, for instance; but that's case-by-case, not a fault in affirmative action per se.)

I understand what you are saying. The intention isn't to hurt the groups. But in practice it does. That makes DEI racist, even though everyone championing it isn't. If you know a thing you're doing hurts people and you keep doing it, then you're just hurting people.

Reminds me of a conversation I had with a black South African black businessman when I was in Mumbai in 2003. He wanted Apartheid back. Not because he was for Apartheid. But because it was dismantled in a bad way. Each South African company needed a quota of blacks. The blacks who got hired becasue of the quota knew they were, so they didn't work. His black employees didn't work. His white employees did. His words. Inplication, South African DEI killed the ambition of blacks. This was in 2003. Since South Africa has gone from a healthy economy on par with Europe, to a standard dysfunctional African post-colonial economy. I know this wasn't the only reason it's economy has tanked. But I am sure it didn't help.

Too often liberals mean well, but end up hurting those they want to help. I'm a liberal. I think we should keep trying. But a good liberal should also re-evaluate and adjust when things aren't going according to plan. The liberals are also supposed to be the "informed by science"-side. We associate "faith based policies" with conservatism. Humanity is fucked if both left and right are both reduced to faith based religious cults.

 

[Politesse]

Reminds me of a conversation I had with a black South African black businessman when I was in Mumbai in 2003. He wanted Apartheid back. Not because he was for Apartheid. But because it was dismantled in a bad way. Each South African company needed a quota of blacks. The blacks who got hired becasue of the quota knew they were, so they didn't work. His black employees didn't work. His white employees did. His words. Inplication, South African DEI killed the ambition of blacks. This was in 2003. Since South Africa has gone from a healthy economy on par with Europe, to a standard dysfunctional African post-colonial economy. I know this wasn't the only reason it's economy has tanked. But I am sure it didn't help.

Interesting how all of your "solutions" to social ills involve reducing a negligible harm to whites by greatly harming Blacks instead. It's almost as though you are... what's the word for that again?

 

[Politesse]

Too often liberals mean well, but end up hurting those they want to help.

Like how you're a "liberal" who means well? And wants to bring the motherfucking Apartheid back?

 

[Elixir]

Inclusion is a zero-sum game unless you're increasing the number of positions.

Not buying that. Anyone can “increase the number of positions”. (If there exists any degree of equal opportunity)

Inclusion, as I noted above is not some kind of actionable principle to be enforced, but a metric of the extent to which equality is operational.

The “number of positions” is not fixed, and is very much subject to people’s abilities to create positions for themselves and/others. It’s NOT a zero sum game. Pretending it is, is to deny people’s abilities to create positions.
Believe me B, in 2006 I was fairly unemployable in the marketplace of “positions” but was able, through the fact of inclusion in critical conversations, to create a “position” for myself, and ultimately dozens of others. And that was not the first time I had to create my own position.

 

[thebeave]

Too often liberals mean well, but end up hurting those they want to help.

Like how you're a "liberal" who means well? And wants to bring the motherfucking Apartheid back?

He did not say that.

 

[Elixir]

Too often liberals mean well, but end up hurting those they want to help. I'm a liberal.

I guess that’s an unassailable pair of sentences.
But what’s true of you may not be true of everyone else. Not even other “liberals”.