• FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      X, in this case, is “treating people differently based on race.”

      I would love if we were to do un-X.

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

          • twice_twotimes@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.

              • twice_twotimes@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                11 months ago

                The choice is “help people from systematically disadvantaged groups” or “don’t.” I’d argue that the “don’t” would be the easier choice.

                • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  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.