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.
This debate feels somewhat surreal because I feel like both sides are wrong.
Conservatives are clearly doing this because they’re pretty, vindictive, reactionary ethnonationalists. DEI is clearly harmless.
Conversely, I’ve not seen any evidence of these meaningfully ameliorating systemic racism at all. Honestly, they feel like another successful effort to turn a serious social problem into a profit generating industry, like carbon offsets.
(Maybe that’s what they’ll replace DEI with: some kind of Racism offset./s)
Anyway, what I’m saying is I have no horse in this race.
From my experience, DEI is not about making racist people not racist, or sexist people not sexist. It’s about making people from varying backgrounds feel welcome, and making sure people don’t feel isolated if they’re different.
I think that’s the intention, and it’s laudible, but in my experience it’s become something of a racket. An industry of consultants exist to receive money from corporations to launder their images. I think some of their recommendations are good, but ultimately it seems tokenizing and designed to brag about the fact that a board room full of ruthless Harvard grads isn’t all white men.
It seems highly performative. I haven’t seen credible evidence, for instance, that having more queer people on the board of a fossil fuel company changes their behavior or the long-term consequences for the poor families forced to live next to the company’s pollution.
I don’t mind these programs. I just think they’re a money maker and branding exercise rather than a genuine tool of change.
Now, socially responsible investing: that’s a conservative bogeyman that I think has some teeth.
I think you’re confusing diversity hiring practices with DEI programs. DEI can be a great tool to help employees/students from feeling isolated. I also suggest you stop watching so much cable news; I don’t think DEI is as big a deal as the media makes it out to be.
That’s possible (except the cable news thing, I don’t watch that).
My experience with DEI is primarily in the form of PR. I’m skeptical that DEI initiatives change hiring practices. I think it primarily takes the form of reporting, such as listing how many upper level managers are non-white. Which I think is totally harmless. Like you said, I don’t think it’s a big deal at all. But I’m skeptical it achieves much. I think it’s based on unexamined assumptions. Does increasing diversity in leadership meaningfully improve the experience for workers? And is that even the goal, or is increased diversity within board rooms itself the goal? Because if so, that’s kind of shitty goal for anyone who isn’t aspiring to join the 1%.
Mind you, I’m open to having my mind changed if there’s evidence otherwise. But I think some of the examples of benefits of DEI programs I hear don’t sound like new initiatives. Assessing the racial makeup of a an applicant pool, for instance, isn’t a DEI program, as far as I’m aware. I believe that’s an affirmative action program that has been around for decades. Which is good, but I don’t think that’s DEI.
I think this might be a semantic issue. Maybe the stuff I like actually counts as DEI and I just didn’t realize it.
I don’t think that flows logically. I don’t think anyone predicates being upset on being surprised.
Do you read stories about prescription drug prices going up or the destruction in Gaza and say, ‘Shucks, this would be pretty upsetting… if it weren’t to be expected.’ ?
I don’t think that’s DEI, that’s Affirmative Action.
The Supreme Court banned that, so it’s over.
The problem with ivy league admissions was never racial selection. It’s that it’s a cartel. It’s an artificially limited resource. Asian applicants aren’t being excluded for black people, they’re being excluded to leave empty space at a gigantic campus that could accommodate several times sad many students as they let in.
Again: they definitely aren’t being excluded based on their race anymore. The supreme court banned this practice completely. So I don’t know what there is to argue about.
I think it’s a distraction, though, because the underlying issue is that these institutions are a corrupt parasitic power retention project. They offer a very small number of people access to networks to ensure they can dole out favors in a carefully controlled manner, and then we argue about whether the people they’re choosing to let into this artificially limited power sharing network are unfairly discriminated against by race, as though what they’re doing would be okay if it had no racial bias.
I’m not here to argue that their use of racial discrimination was a good thing, but I think it’s a distraction from the fact that even now that they’ve ended the racial element of the program, they’re STILL a corrupt parasitic antidemocratic cabal. They’re still excluding people unnecessarily, it’s just the criteria they use has been changed to ensure that those people are unable to organize themselves into any kind of class action lawsuit.
I’m not here to argue that their use of racial discrimination was a good thing
Yeah, as that sentence clearly says, that’s not my point.
I feel like you’re looking for a conflict where there is none. Do you think their policies were bad and treated people unfairly? I agree. They were bad and they treated people unfairly. The point I’m trying to make is that we should demand more than JUST an end to racially restrictive admissions. I’m "yes-and"ing you. There’s no reason to argue.
This debate feels somewhat surreal because I feel like both sides are wrong.
Conservatives are clearly doing this because they’re pretty, vindictive, reactionary ethnonationalists. DEI is clearly harmless.
Conversely, I’ve not seen any evidence of these meaningfully ameliorating systemic racism at all. Honestly, they feel like another successful effort to turn a serious social problem into a profit generating industry, like carbon offsets.
(Maybe that’s what they’ll replace DEI with: some kind of Racism offset./s)
Anyway, what I’m saying is I have no horse in this race.
From my experience, DEI is not about making racist people not racist, or sexist people not sexist. It’s about making people from varying backgrounds feel welcome, and making sure people don’t feel isolated if they’re different.
I think that’s the intention, and it’s laudible, but in my experience it’s become something of a racket. An industry of consultants exist to receive money from corporations to launder their images. I think some of their recommendations are good, but ultimately it seems tokenizing and designed to brag about the fact that a board room full of ruthless Harvard grads isn’t all white men.
It seems highly performative. I haven’t seen credible evidence, for instance, that having more queer people on the board of a fossil fuel company changes their behavior or the long-term consequences for the poor families forced to live next to the company’s pollution.
I don’t mind these programs. I just think they’re a money maker and branding exercise rather than a genuine tool of change.
Now, socially responsible investing: that’s a conservative bogeyman that I think has some teeth.
I think you’re confusing diversity hiring practices with DEI programs. DEI can be a great tool to help employees/students from feeling isolated. I also suggest you stop watching so much cable news; I don’t think DEI is as big a deal as the media makes it out to be.
That’s possible (except the cable news thing, I don’t watch that).
My experience with DEI is primarily in the form of PR. I’m skeptical that DEI initiatives change hiring practices. I think it primarily takes the form of reporting, such as listing how many upper level managers are non-white. Which I think is totally harmless. Like you said, I don’t think it’s a big deal at all. But I’m skeptical it achieves much. I think it’s based on unexamined assumptions. Does increasing diversity in leadership meaningfully improve the experience for workers? And is that even the goal, or is increased diversity within board rooms itself the goal? Because if so, that’s kind of shitty goal for anyone who isn’t aspiring to join the 1%.
Mind you, I’m open to having my mind changed if there’s evidence otherwise. But I think some of the examples of benefits of DEI programs I hear don’t sound like new initiatives. Assessing the racial makeup of a an applicant pool, for instance, isn’t a DEI program, as far as I’m aware. I believe that’s an affirmative action program that has been around for decades. Which is good, but I don’t think that’s DEI.
I think this might be a semantic issue. Maybe the stuff I like actually counts as DEI and I just didn’t realize it.
Curious: do you expect sincerity in corporations? If not why are you upset about the lack of it?
I don’t think that flows logically. I don’t think anyone predicates being upset on being surprised.
Do you read stories about prescription drug prices going up or the destruction in Gaza and say, ‘Shucks, this would be pretty upsetting… if it weren’t to be expected.’ ?
Make sure to mention that to all the Asians excluded from Harvard.
I don’t think that’s DEI, that’s Affirmative Action.
The Supreme Court banned that, so it’s over.
The problem with ivy league admissions was never racial selection. It’s that it’s a cartel. It’s an artificially limited resource. Asian applicants aren’t being excluded for black people, they’re being excluded to leave empty space at a gigantic campus that could accommodate several times sad many students as they let in.
Correct. They’re being excluded, based on their race.
Again: they definitely aren’t being excluded based on their race anymore. The supreme court banned this practice completely. So I don’t know what there is to argue about.
I think it’s a distraction, though, because the underlying issue is that these institutions are a corrupt parasitic power retention project. They offer a very small number of people access to networks to ensure they can dole out favors in a carefully controlled manner, and then we argue about whether the people they’re choosing to let into this artificially limited power sharing network are unfairly discriminated against by race, as though what they’re doing would be okay if it had no racial bias.
I’m not here to argue that their use of racial discrimination was a good thing, but I think it’s a distraction from the fact that even now that they’ve ended the racial element of the program, they’re STILL a corrupt parasitic antidemocratic cabal. They’re still excluding people unnecessarily, it’s just the criteria they use has been changed to ensure that those people are unable to organize themselves into any kind of class action lawsuit.
I can never agree to this, in any context.
Yeah, as that sentence clearly says, that’s not my point.
I feel like you’re looking for a conflict where there is none. Do you think their policies were bad and treated people unfairly? I agree. They were bad and they treated people unfairly. The point I’m trying to make is that we should demand more than JUST an end to racially restrictive admissions. I’m "yes-and"ing you. There’s no reason to argue.
I think we are on the same page.
You haven’t looked for it. Read any of the original affirmative action Supreme Court cases where they had trials on this question.