The backlash against “wokeism” has led a growing number of states to ban D.E.I. programs at public universities. Thousands of emails and other documents reveal the playbook — and grievances — behind one strand of the anti-D.E.I. campaign.
So now DEI programs are only for people of colour?
Why not just “disadvantaged people”? That takes race out of the equation entirely, and everyone is satisfied. Unless excluding disadvantaged people of specific races or genders or whatever is actually the point.
Extend to gender, ethnicity, LGBTQ, whatever…the key is the “systematically.” We can’t assess relative (dis)advantage at an individual level, but we can recognize it at a systemic level and develop programs that counter it systemically.
No, that’s a false dichotomy, there are other choices. Such as “help disadvantaged people regardless of their genetics.” I reject the “but it’s too hard” argument. If racial discrimination or gender discrimination or discrimination based on orientation is wrong, then it’s wrong. Don’t put an asterisk on it with a list of types that it’s okay for.
“We can’t stop doing X as long as we’re still doing X” doesn’t exactly make much sense either.
deleted by creator
X, in this case, is “treating people differently based on race.”
I would love if we were to do un-X.
I’d say X is more like “disproportionately and systematically disadvantaging people of color.”
So now DEI programs are only for people of colour?
Why not just “disadvantaged people”? That takes race out of the equation entirely, and everyone is satisfied. Unless excluding disadvantaged people of specific races or genders or whatever is actually the point.
Extend to gender, ethnicity, LGBTQ, whatever…the key is the “systematically.” We can’t assess relative (dis)advantage at an individual level, but we can recognize it at a systemic level and develop programs that counter it systemically.
“Because it’s easier” is not a good excuse for discrimination, IMO.
The choice is “help people from systematically disadvantaged groups” or “don’t.” I’d argue that the “don’t” would be the easier choice.
No, that’s a false dichotomy, there are other choices. Such as “help disadvantaged people regardless of their genetics.” I reject the “but it’s too hard” argument. If racial discrimination or gender discrimination or discrimination based on orientation is wrong, then it’s wrong. Don’t put an asterisk on it with a list of types that it’s okay for.