5 ms·
Too bad, because that's what other groups do, putting those that don't at a disadvantage. And I should add - you speak as if discrimination against nativists is
by deogeo 7y ago
Too bad, because that's what other groups do, putting those that don't at a disadvantage. And I should add - you speak as if discrimination against nativists is just a hypothetical. But it is already a fact:
In a survey, a third of liberal professors admitted they'd discriminate against conservatives. "Generally speaking, the more liberal the respondent, the more willingness to discriminate and, paradoxically, the higher the assumption that conservatives do not face a hostile climate in the academy.": https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majority-on-campus-yes-were-biased/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majo...
The University of California requires job applicants to submit a statement on how they helped advance diversity: https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201911/rnoti-p1778.pdf https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201911/rnoti-p1778.pdf
- esoterica 7y agoUmmm, you’re the one arguing that in-group out-group divisions are desirable. According to YOUR logic, not mine, discriminating based on political viewpoints is a good thing.
- deogeo 7y agoI'm arguing it is advantageous for groups that discriminate, but aren't discriminated against. Good is a moral judgement that doesn't enter the picture.