3 ms·

> We are all homo sapiens and should be offered the same opportunities as everyone else. Do not discriminate against race, against gender, against religion, aga

by awb 5y ago

> We are all homo sapiens and should be offered the same opportunities as everyone else. Do not discriminate against race, against gender, against religion, against political affiliation, or any other category that may be used to make people in an "other" category. Right. But the problem is: 1) when that rule wasn’t followed initially, it creates an unequal playing field that can take generations to undo. 2) not everyone thinks that way. It would be nice to just say: starting today no more bigotry against anyone for any reason, but that only works on paper.

jollybean 5y ago
Yes, you have a good point. But the problem is that actions to 'rehabilitate society using racial/gender lense' is just an excuse to bring out and institutionalize the casual bigotry of the ostensibly offended. Examples abound. Probably the only way to allow for such an approach to be taken is if there were constant oversight, and required 'sunset' in the clauses such that the rules had to be automatically rescinded after a period of time. Aka: "UCLA has a diversity problem in the Business Program, so they're going to focus on bringing XYZ groups into the fold. This program is subject to oversight by outside 3rd party governance body, to which we must provide the data on the program that they request. After 3 years, the program must be sunset, and an after action report will be written by the independent oversight board" If I were King, I would probably support those kinds of programs, even the slightly more radical ones knowing that at least there is oversight, data, that it can get shut down, and no matter what it will 'time out' eventually.
- awb 5y ago
  > But the problem is that actions to 'rehabilitate society using racial/gender lense' is just an excuse to bring out and institutionalize the casual bigotry of the ostensibly offended. There are plenty of well intentioned people and programs too though that aren't driven by bigotry. > Probably the only way to allow for such an approach to be taken is if there were constant oversight, and required 'sunset' in the clauses such that the rules had to be automatically rescinded after a period of time. That sounds like an interesting proposal. 2 questions: 1) What happens if you're 1 year into a 3 year program and see that it's veering off course? Maybe folks are gaming the system, or there's a flaw in the program that's limiting its effectiveness. Do you still have the ability to change the program dynamics? Would version 2 only get a 2 year run then? 2) What does the 3rd party have the authority to do? Can they shut down the program or mandate changes? What's to stop activists at an organization from re-running a program even if it got a negative report from a 3rd party?

by awb 5y ago

jollybean 5y ago

Yes, you have a good point. But the problem is that actions to 'rehabilitate society using racial/gender lense' is just an excuse to bring out and institutionalize the casual bigotry of the ostensibly offended. Examples abound. Probably the only way to allow for such an approach to be taken is if there were constant oversight, and required 'sunset' in the clauses such that the rules had to be automatically rescinded after a period of time. Aka: "UCLA has a diversity problem in the Business Program, so they're going to focus on bringing XYZ groups into the fold. This program is subject to oversight by outside 3rd party governance body, to which we must provide the data on the program that they request. After 3 years, the program must be sunset, and an after action report will be written by the independent oversight board" If I were King, I would probably support those kinds of programs, even the slightly more radical ones knowing that at least there is oversight, data, that it can get shut down, and no matter what it will 'time out' eventually.

awb 5y ago
> But the problem is that actions to 'rehabilitate society using racial/gender lense' is just an excuse to bring out and institutionalize the casual bigotry of the ostensibly offended. There are plenty of well intentioned people and programs too though that aren't driven by bigotry. > Probably the only way to allow for such an approach to be taken is if there were constant oversight, and required 'sunset' in the clauses such that the rules had to be automatically rescinded after a period of time. That sounds like an interesting proposal. 2 questions: 1) What happens if you're 1 year into a 3 year program and see that it's veering off course? Maybe folks are gaming the system, or there's a flaw in the program that's limiting its effectiveness. Do you still have the ability to change the program dynamics? Would version 2 only get a 2 year run then? 2) What does the 3rd party have the authority to do? Can they shut down the program or mandate changes? What's to stop activists at an organization from re-running a program even if it got a negative report from a 3rd party?