3 ms·

I thought I was pretty liberal but the section of this article about the school board is astounding. >> One night in 2021, the meeting lasted seven hours, one

I thought I was pretty liberal but the section of this article about the school board is astounding. >> One night in 2021, the meeting lasted seven hours, one of which was devoted to making sure a man named Seth Brenzel stayed off the parent committee. >> Brenzel is a music teacher, and at the time he and his husband had a child in public school. Eight seats on the committee were open, and Brenzel was unanimously recommended by the other committee members. But there was a problem: Brenzel is white. >> “My name’s Mari,” one attendee said. “I’m an openly queer parent of color that uses they/them pronouns.” They noted that the parent committee was already too white (out of 10 sitting members, three were white). This was “really, really problematic,” they said. “I bet there are parents that we can find that are of color and that also are queer … QTPOC voices need to be led first before white queer voices.” Diversity on the board is a great idea but denying perfectly qualified people the role because they don't meet a laundry list of criteria (criteria they can't change) is mad.

MrMember 4y ago
Even worse he was the only person volunteering for that position. They didn't choose someone more "diverse" instead of him, they chose nobody.
CoastalCoder 4y ago
That basic sentiment animates some of the arguments against diversity-oriented hiring.
notacoward 4y ago
That part struck me too, but especially the part about using "intersectionality" as a weapon. I put the word in quotes because I want to highlight that it's the use of the word rather than the concept that offends. AIUI the whole idea of intersectionality is to recognize that even someone who's privileged in one way might be deprivileged in another, and vice versa. It's supposed to be inclusive. Using it as a trump card (pun/insult very much intended) to exclude others or shut down conversation seems abusive.
- basisword 4y ago
  The trump card aspect of it is quite horrible. It also feels very negative to be reducing people to 'minority' attributes.
- Aloha 4y ago
  To be honest - the only way I've seen intersectionality used - was as a way to divide not unite, essentially as a weapon. Broadly with intersectionality in practice that I've seen is its used to divide people into ever smaller groups, sliced up by their differences - it can make it incredibly hard to get people grouped into rational communities of interests, who can work together to fix problems. As a concept, it shouldn't divide it should instead allow people to acknowledge that everyone is not at the relative same privilege level, and that we need to be aware of hidden disadvantages, but humans being like we are, it never seems to work out that way outside of academic discourse. This is a broader problem with concepts for academic discourse making it into the broader world, without the intense educational background, they turn into a form of either buzzword or checkbox compliance.
  - zozbot234 4y ago
    Except that even "privilege level" as such is not a concept from academic discourse. It's a concept from Maoist discourse-- in its original form of "bourgeois privilege", which applied to such elite things as being basically literate-- which got picked up by academics; and largely bourgeois, privileged academics at that.
    - Aloha 4y ago
      It's not an entirely harmful way of thinking - a bunch of us have hidden disabilities, and forcing people to think about it, is broadly, helpful. I don't think its useful for determining public policy, in general practice intersectionality is harmful to minority groups because it makes our pool to form a community of interest out of smaller.
gsibble 4y ago
That's hilariously stupid. Great example of why I left that broken city.
hindsightbias 4y ago
The problem isn’t the people, it’s the very concept of a school board. I could go on all day about the Xtian school boards I grew up under. Athiests, Jews, non-whites not welcome. That’s still the norm in a majority of America.
- colpabar 4y ago
  I think what makes the progressive blend of discrimination so much worse is that they do what they do in the name of not being discriminatory. It's just so disgusting to me to call yourself "antiracist" and then quite literally discriminate based on race. It also just seems like a massive waste of effort - what does this accomplish? How does it help anyone?
  - zozbot234 4y ago
    Because it's not real antiracism. True "progressives" have practically never cared about marginalized races by and large, that sort of concern has most frequently been either religious or (quite rarely) broadly humanitarian/humanist in nature. The only concern of political radicals is power itself.
  - ajmurmann 4y ago
    I have similar struggles with affirmative action as well. At least I understand the logic there that creating critical mass of URMs will make things for them more comfortable. The focus on rave leaves a bitter taste in my mouth though, but I also understand that there are issues with the,ore intuitive to me, goal of going straight to colorblindness.
  - yucky 4y ago
    >It's just so disgusting to me to call yourself "antiracist" and then quite literally discriminate based on race. Interestingly enough, the concept of anti-racist (despite the way it sounds) is racism by definition. I think some people use a different definition of racism to make this not be the case, but if you list out "anti-racist" policies you'll see they all contain racial discrimination in them.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sto_hristo 4y ago
Sickening. Twisting normality like that has always ended up in annihilation as reality has proven to be quite immutable. Problem is that the process is quite slow in human-lifespan term so such people have to be endured for a while.
fortran77 4y ago
The Atlantic omits it, but they specifically objected to Brenzel because he was Jewish. The type of leftist that runs the schools in SF hates Jews.
drewcoo 4y ago
Liberal "diversity" is skin deep. And as long as everything under the skin thinks and acts just like a white "woke" businessman, then it can be business as usual. A few years ago, we had our first black President, Obama. He was quite open about governing like a 1980s moderate conservative. Black President Reagan. That's the diversity we have today. Thanks, liberals!
hintymad 4y ago
It's just so easy to use diversity as a weapon. That's exactly how righteousness was used in history. Why bother trying to be objective or build consensus when you can call upon morality to quash your components? Students in elementary school beat their principals to death in 1960s in China? It was the morally the right thing to do. Intellectuals were the most counter revolutionary, right? Killing millions of people in Cambodia? Of course it was the right thing to do. Those damn people were counter revolutionary, right? Killing locals and toppling government in Bolivia? Of course it was the right thing to do, right? The Bolivian bourgeoisies were oppressors after all and the suffering I saw justified my action, right? Raiding millions of homes in China? Of course it was the right thing to do. Capitalism was the root of all evil, and property owners were the worst, no? What the liberals in SF have been doing is no different. The moral high ground is simply intersectionality, whatever that is.
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
3 out of 10 whites is too white? Um, what's the ethnic makeup of San Francisco? It's 46% white. So why is 3/10 too white? I suspect because "whites are evil". I am open to hearing any rational explanation, though.

MrMember 4y ago

Even worse he was the only person volunteering for that position. They didn't choose someone more "diverse" instead of him, they chose nobody.

CoastalCoder 4y ago

That basic sentiment animates some of the arguments against diversity-oriented hiring.

notacoward 4y ago

That part struck me too, but especially the part about using "intersectionality" as a weapon. I put the word in quotes because I want to highlight that it's the use of the word rather than the concept that offends. AIUI the whole idea of intersectionality is to recognize that even someone who's privileged in one way might be deprivileged in another, and vice versa. It's supposed to be inclusive. Using it as a trump card (pun/insult very much intended) to exclude others or shut down conversation seems abusive.

basisword 4y ago
The trump card aspect of it is quite horrible. It also feels very negative to be reducing people to 'minority' attributes.
Aloha 4y ago
To be honest - the only way I've seen intersectionality used - was as a way to divide not unite, essentially as a weapon. Broadly with intersectionality in practice that I've seen is its used to divide people into ever smaller groups, sliced up by their differences - it can make it incredibly hard to get people grouped into rational communities of interests, who can work together to fix problems. As a concept, it shouldn't divide it should instead allow people to acknowledge that everyone is not at the relative same privilege level, and that we need to be aware of hidden disadvantages, but humans being like we are, it never seems to work out that way outside of academic discourse. This is a broader problem with concepts for academic discourse making it into the broader world, without the intense educational background, they turn into a form of either buzzword or checkbox compliance.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  Except that even "privilege level" as such is not a concept from academic discourse. It's a concept from Maoist discourse-- in its original form of "bourgeois privilege", which applied to such elite things as being basically literate-- which got picked up by academics; and largely bourgeois, privileged academics at that.
  - Aloha 4y ago
    It's not an entirely harmful way of thinking - a bunch of us have hidden disabilities, and forcing people to think about it, is broadly, helpful. I don't think its useful for determining public policy, in general practice intersectionality is harmful to minority groups because it makes our pool to form a community of interest out of smaller.

gsibble 4y ago

That's hilariously stupid. Great example of why I left that broken city.

hindsightbias 4y ago

The problem isn’t the people, it’s the very concept of a school board. I could go on all day about the Xtian school boards I grew up under. Athiests, Jews, non-whites not welcome. That’s still the norm in a majority of America.

colpabar 4y ago
I think what makes the progressive blend of discrimination so much worse is that they do what they do in the name of not being discriminatory. It's just so disgusting to me to call yourself "antiracist" and then quite literally discriminate based on race. It also just seems like a massive waste of effort - what does this accomplish? How does it help anyone?
- zozbot234 4y ago
  Because it's not real antiracism. True "progressives" have practically never cared about marginalized races by and large, that sort of concern has most frequently been either religious or (quite rarely) broadly humanitarian/humanist in nature. The only concern of political radicals is power itself.
- ajmurmann 4y ago
  I have similar struggles with affirmative action as well. At least I understand the logic there that creating critical mass of URMs will make things for them more comfortable. The focus on rave leaves a bitter taste in my mouth though, but I also understand that there are issues with the,ore intuitive to me, goal of going straight to colorblindness.
- yucky 4y ago
  >It's just so disgusting to me to call yourself "antiracist" and then quite literally discriminate based on race. Interestingly enough, the concept of anti-racist (despite the way it sounds) is racism by definition. I think some people use a different definition of racism to make this not be the case, but if you list out "anti-racist" policies you'll see they all contain racial discrimination in them.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

sto_hristo 4y ago

Sickening. Twisting normality like that has always ended up in annihilation as reality has proven to be quite immutable. Problem is that the process is quite slow in human-lifespan term so such people have to be endured for a while.

fortran77 4y ago

The Atlantic omits it, but they specifically objected to Brenzel because he was Jewish. The type of leftist that runs the schools in SF hates Jews.

drewcoo 4y ago

Liberal "diversity" is skin deep. And as long as everything under the skin thinks and acts just like a white "woke" businessman, then it can be business as usual. A few years ago, we had our first black President, Obama. He was quite open about governing like a 1980s moderate conservative. Black President Reagan. That's the diversity we have today. Thanks, liberals!

hintymad 4y ago

It's just so easy to use diversity as a weapon. That's exactly how righteousness was used in history. Why bother trying to be objective or build consensus when you can call upon morality to quash your components? Students in elementary school beat their principals to death in 1960s in China? It was the morally the right thing to do. Intellectuals were the most counter revolutionary, right? Killing millions of people in Cambodia? Of course it was the right thing to do. Those damn people were counter revolutionary, right? Killing locals and toppling government in Bolivia? Of course it was the right thing to do, right? The Bolivian bourgeoisies were oppressors after all and the suffering I saw justified my action, right? Raiding millions of homes in China? Of course it was the right thing to do. Capitalism was the root of all evil, and property owners were the worst, no? What the liberals in SF have been doing is no different. The moral high ground is simply intersectionality, whatever that is.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

3 out of 10 whites is too white? Um, what's the ethnic makeup of San Francisco? It's 46% white. So why is 3/10 too white? I suspect because "whites are evil". I am open to hearing any rational explanation, though.