10 ms·

I think framing DEI policies and initiatives as unassailable is what scares people more than the policies and initiatives themselves. Of course, many people wo

I think framing DEI policies and initiatives as unassailable is what scares people more than the policies and initiatives themselves. Of course, many people would react negatively to someone saying flat-out “diversity is bad”, especially because people with those opinions tend to be coming from a place where that’s a toned-down version of more abhorrent views. But, people with more measured criticisms of specific policies get lumped in with the first set. So because it’s very hard to say “there is a better way to do this” or “this may not have positive systemic effects” or “this does not seem relevant in the context it appears in”, there are few checks and balances, and you get these instances where it’s clumsily shoehorned into things because nobody dared disagree. I think for many people, this bothers them more than any specific thing.

Spooky23 4y ago
It’s just a new old boys network, except you get different types of infighting. Movements like this aren’t new and always burn out. Once the tribe in charge gets in trouble, it will move on to the next fad. 1990s diversity gave way to late 90s run everything like a business. If you work in a huge bureaucracy like the University of California, if leaving isn’t practical, you just need to behave and hunker down and focus on what’s productive to you.
- jasmer 4y ago
  I'm not nearly as optmistic. This is bureaucratic entrenchment across many systems and will take a 'movement' to unseat. The populist paradox is that most people probably disagree with this, but are not willing to stick their necks out, leaving it to those who have nothing left to loose aka the crazies who have populist leaders few of us want to support. It's a bit like border policy, the vast majority of Americans don't want willy nilly open borders, and recognize that 'it's complicated' but it seems 'one side' doesn't have the tenacity to do much about it and their more radical elements kind of want 'de facto' open borders, but the people screaming about the problem and wanting to 'build a wall' are themselves to angry and radical, not a movement regular people want to be supportive of. We need calmer heads to prevail. It may be more possible now that Trump is gone, whatever you think of him he was a least 'polarizing' and put people in a tizzy.
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    Optimism is a strong word :) Bureaucracy does whatever it's master wants. I've been acquainted with organizations where these sorts of bureaucracies get usurped by changes at the top. You'll get some variant of crazy, just with different target. It's sad and silly, but what can you do? The border policy stuff is different. "No" is very simple and easy to understand. You can say "Hey Farmhand Bob, illegal aliens are taking good american jobs" and there's a visceral reaction to it. Never mind that Farmhand Bob's job depends on his boss hiring migrants to get the harvest in. Anything other than "no" is nuanced, and is easily shot down by reactionaries. Identity bureaucracy is just tribal/sectarian politics.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
registeredcorn 4y ago
I'm asking from a sincere position here, so I don't wish to come off sounding antagonistic, but could you explain why the statement "diversity is bad" is wrong? From my own perspective, the idea of encouraging or endorsing something that hurts unity, cohesion, and understanding. I cannot think of a way in which diversity would not be a bad and damaging thing. I have, of course, heard comparisons to things like species of dogs, "Mutts are healthier than purebreds", but people aren't dogs. Or the human immune system being able to fight of disease, "Being exposed to different diseases makes your immune system stronger", but people aren't diseases, either. It disturbs me when people are boiled down to those types of inhuman terms. Those types of analogies never really address the issue without comparing it to something that isn't the issue itself. It always seems to fall short. I've never heard of someone explain why encouraging intrinsic division wouldn't be a destructive thing. I've heard some vague phrases like, "It's good to have different perspectives to appeal to different groups of people", but that seems to be a criticism against diversity, not encouragement for it. It seems to say that diversity is disunity; chaos. That it is a kind of confirmation that different groups do not understand each other at all, and can only communicate through some kind of manufactured means. It just seems like a position that isn't very well thought out. Again, I hope it doesn't come off sounding some specific way. It seems like it's a topic that's easy to sound hateful on. I don't wish to seem such a way; I've never really understood what it was that people who endorsed diversity were trying to hint at. It's like there's some core concept that's never been said out loud, and there's just been a lot of assumptions built off of that thing that was left unaddressed. I'd really like to understand what that inner thing is.
- fwungy 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - opportune 4y ago
    This seems like a very European perspective and not even responding to the OP’s question about why diversity helps. Here in the US most of my friends are second generation immigrants - many not white - who are fully assimilated and just as capable as any one else. Diversity is, in my opinion, entirely about making sure those individuals are fairly considered and welcome, even if racist and edgelords think they must be incapable of fitting in because other people of their ethnicity haven’t integrated.
fwungy 4y ago
Same thing with covid. People with good questions that went against the narrative were lumped up with people spouting the most stupid and awful things. That's a propaganda technique.
- WWLink 4y ago
  There was also a seemingly endless supply of "good questions" where the answers were never deemed acceptable for some long list of reasons, a new reason added to the list every week. I think at some point a lot of people got fed up trying to give answers to those "good questions" and just settled on "eat shit" and "get the fuck out of my store!" and "I am tired of your shit and I quit!" (or something along those lines lol)
  - fwungy 4y ago
    They used to have debates about controversial subjects where the two sides would face-off in front of a crowd. I think if Fauci and someone really smart like Peter Hotesz would have beat anyone the covid skeptics could have put up and established their credibility and authority in the eyes of the general public by not appearing to run. One thing Steve Jobs did well was take hard questions in public venues. He didn't always make everyone happy but his willingness to stand for his ideas inspired confidence in the Apple community. Fauci's lack of willingness to face a respectfully adversarial audience or interview really hurt his perception as a leader. It almost certainly cost many lives.
    - naravara 4y ago
      Talented debaters are not necessarily honest or knowledgable in their fields. In fact, being too honest or too nerdy is often a disadvantage. There’s a reason cases on technical matters in courts still get argued my litigators with subject-matter experts as witnesses, not by the SMEs themselves.
      - fwungy 4y ago
        However they do it, if you look like you're avoiding questions people aren't going to trust you.
wellthisisgreat 4y ago
> “diversity is bad” Diversity is good. Protectionism and enforcement of artificial diversity is bad
- brnaftr361 4y ago
  I expect your diversity and their diversity are intrinsically different concepts. And I think it's a really important distinction to be made. You calling it artificial isn't adequate because what you deem artificial and what they have classified as diversity are more equivocal. And they have the framework to do the mental gymnastics to argue they're right until you're blue in the face, if any definition is concrete it must be theirs. A lot of these "forward" ideas are undergirded by postmodernist ideology. I think this is interesting on two points, one being that class is almost unanimously ignored, and this was criticised by the communists of the era as being liable to divide the proletariat - and so it is. But also the deconstructivism and conception of language furnishes jointly a strange shibboleth and doublespeak which further promulgates this... Invisible enemy. Unironically, though, most of the social ills which are lambasted as systemic failures are products of class, itself a function of race but only coincidentally - the reality is these things are mostly independent in the US. But when you divide the the poor and the poor and the middle class and the middle class and the poor and the middle class, you get a rapidly deteriorating status quo for everyone. But it also creates a disruptive interface: When you hear equity as someone who is not strictly apprised of the meaning it sounds good, as does diversity, but their definition lies outside the canon of the English language. Equity, equ- equal... The implicit connotation of that word, even the definition equality of rights sounds noble to anyone that hears it. But that isn't what they're saying, what they're saying is give someone with an unquantifiable disadvantage (which may not exist at all), based singularly on outward identity, a step up. Nothing to do with legitimacy of hardship or their class, just blatant and racist, sexist, and sexual assumptions. Literally doling out extra credit for being a trans Asian. And it's all really patronizing, it's all really racist and sexist. Most of all it's performative, and falls hard into Goodhart's Law. Protectionism is paternalistic, but patronizing people is just wanton disrespect towards someone's individual potential. I'm all for helping hands, but now when it isn't inclusive (another term they misuse) and fair.
Animats 4y ago
> framing DEI policies and initiatives as unassailable is what scares people. The first rule of ___ is that you don't talk about ___.
onetimeusename 4y ago
The way diversity is implemented is bad. It gives power to people on the basis that they are aggrieved and have a higher moral status than others in the same position. So why should we assume that once those people are in, they would voluntarily choose to surrender their own power and status which comes from allegedly being aggrieved? The whole point of DEI was supposedly to "equalize" things so once you are a beneficiary of a DEI policy, you should no longer be able to claim victim status. In fact, once they get in, they argue for even more grievance policies, power, and special treatment. Often that is specifically what the job is meant to do. What is the real end result of this in particular for universities which are gateways to power? It's not surprising that universities are where this battle is being fought and not fast food or retail jobs.

Spooky23 4y ago

It’s just a new old boys network, except you get different types of infighting. Movements like this aren’t new and always burn out. Once the tribe in charge gets in trouble, it will move on to the next fad. 1990s diversity gave way to late 90s run everything like a business. If you work in a huge bureaucracy like the University of California, if leaving isn’t practical, you just need to behave and hunker down and focus on what’s productive to you.

jasmer 4y ago
I'm not nearly as optmistic. This is bureaucratic entrenchment across many systems and will take a 'movement' to unseat. The populist paradox is that most people probably disagree with this, but are not willing to stick their necks out, leaving it to those who have nothing left to loose aka the crazies who have populist leaders few of us want to support. It's a bit like border policy, the vast majority of Americans don't want willy nilly open borders, and recognize that 'it's complicated' but it seems 'one side' doesn't have the tenacity to do much about it and their more radical elements kind of want 'de facto' open borders, but the people screaming about the problem and wanting to 'build a wall' are themselves to angry and radical, not a movement regular people want to be supportive of. We need calmer heads to prevail. It may be more possible now that Trump is gone, whatever you think of him he was a least 'polarizing' and put people in a tizzy.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  Optimism is a strong word :) Bureaucracy does whatever it's master wants. I've been acquainted with organizations where these sorts of bureaucracies get usurped by changes at the top. You'll get some variant of crazy, just with different target. It's sad and silly, but what can you do? The border policy stuff is different. "No" is very simple and easy to understand. You can say "Hey Farmhand Bob, illegal aliens are taking good american jobs" and there's a visceral reaction to it. Never mind that Farmhand Bob's job depends on his boss hiring migrants to get the harvest in. Anything other than "no" is nuanced, and is easily shot down by reactionaries. Identity bureaucracy is just tribal/sectarian politics.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

registeredcorn 4y ago

I'm asking from a sincere position here, so I don't wish to come off sounding antagonistic, but could you explain why the statement "diversity is bad" is wrong? From my own perspective, the idea of encouraging or endorsing something that hurts unity, cohesion, and understanding. I cannot think of a way in which diversity would not be a bad and damaging thing. I have, of course, heard comparisons to things like species of dogs, "Mutts are healthier than purebreds", but people aren't dogs. Or the human immune system being able to fight of disease, "Being exposed to different diseases makes your immune system stronger", but people aren't diseases, either. It disturbs me when people are boiled down to those types of inhuman terms. Those types of analogies never really address the issue without comparing it to something that isn't the issue itself. It always seems to fall short. I've never heard of someone explain why encouraging intrinsic division wouldn't be a destructive thing. I've heard some vague phrases like, "It's good to have different perspectives to appeal to different groups of people", but that seems to be a criticism against diversity, not encouragement for it. It seems to say that diversity is disunity; chaos. That it is a kind of confirmation that different groups do not understand each other at all, and can only communicate through some kind of manufactured means. It just seems like a position that isn't very well thought out. Again, I hope it doesn't come off sounding some specific way. It seems like it's a topic that's easy to sound hateful on. I don't wish to seem such a way; I've never really understood what it was that people who endorsed diversity were trying to hint at. It's like there's some core concept that's never been said out loud, and there's just been a lot of assumptions built off of that thing that was left unaddressed. I'd really like to understand what that inner thing is.

fwungy 4y ago
[flagged]
- opportune 4y ago
  This seems like a very European perspective and not even responding to the OP’s question about why diversity helps. Here in the US most of my friends are second generation immigrants - many not white - who are fully assimilated and just as capable as any one else. Diversity is, in my opinion, entirely about making sure those individuals are fairly considered and welcome, even if racist and edgelords think they must be incapable of fitting in because other people of their ethnicity haven’t integrated.

fwungy 4y ago

Same thing with covid. People with good questions that went against the narrative were lumped up with people spouting the most stupid and awful things. That's a propaganda technique.

WWLink 4y ago
There was also a seemingly endless supply of "good questions" where the answers were never deemed acceptable for some long list of reasons, a new reason added to the list every week. I think at some point a lot of people got fed up trying to give answers to those "good questions" and just settled on "eat shit" and "get the fuck out of my store!" and "I am tired of your shit and I quit!" (or something along those lines lol)
- fwungy 4y ago
  They used to have debates about controversial subjects where the two sides would face-off in front of a crowd. I think if Fauci and someone really smart like Peter Hotesz would have beat anyone the covid skeptics could have put up and established their credibility and authority in the eyes of the general public by not appearing to run. One thing Steve Jobs did well was take hard questions in public venues. He didn't always make everyone happy but his willingness to stand for his ideas inspired confidence in the Apple community. Fauci's lack of willingness to face a respectfully adversarial audience or interview really hurt his perception as a leader. It almost certainly cost many lives.
  - naravara 4y ago
    Talented debaters are not necessarily honest or knowledgable in their fields. In fact, being too honest or too nerdy is often a disadvantage. There’s a reason cases on technical matters in courts still get argued my litigators with subject-matter experts as witnesses, not by the SMEs themselves.
    - fwungy 4y ago
      However they do it, if you look like you're avoiding questions people aren't going to trust you.

wellthisisgreat 4y ago

> “diversity is bad” Diversity is good. Protectionism and enforcement of artificial diversity is bad

brnaftr361 4y ago
I expect your diversity and their diversity are intrinsically different concepts. And I think it's a really important distinction to be made. You calling it artificial isn't adequate because what you deem artificial and what they have classified as diversity are more equivocal. And they have the framework to do the mental gymnastics to argue they're right until you're blue in the face, if any definition is concrete it must be theirs. A lot of these "forward" ideas are undergirded by postmodernist ideology. I think this is interesting on two points, one being that class is almost unanimously ignored, and this was criticised by the communists of the era as being liable to divide the proletariat - and so it is. But also the deconstructivism and conception of language furnishes jointly a strange shibboleth and doublespeak which further promulgates this... Invisible enemy. Unironically, though, most of the social ills which are lambasted as systemic failures are products of class, itself a function of race but only coincidentally - the reality is these things are mostly independent in the US. But when you divide the the poor and the poor and the middle class and the middle class and the poor and the middle class, you get a rapidly deteriorating status quo for everyone. But it also creates a disruptive interface: When you hear equity as someone who is not strictly apprised of the meaning it sounds good, as does diversity, but their definition lies outside the canon of the English language. Equity, equ- equal... The implicit connotation of that word, even the definition equality of rights sounds noble to anyone that hears it. But that isn't what they're saying, what they're saying is give someone with an unquantifiable disadvantage (which may not exist at all), based singularly on outward identity, a step up. Nothing to do with legitimacy of hardship or their class, just blatant and racist, sexist, and sexual assumptions. Literally doling out extra credit for being a trans Asian. And it's all really patronizing, it's all really racist and sexist. Most of all it's performative, and falls hard into Goodhart's Law. Protectionism is paternalistic, but patronizing people is just wanton disrespect towards someone's individual potential. I'm all for helping hands, but now when it isn't inclusive (another term they misuse) and fair.

Animats 4y ago

> framing DEI policies and initiatives as unassailable is what scares people. The first rule of ___ is that you don't talk about ___.

onetimeusename 4y ago

The way diversity is implemented is bad. It gives power to people on the basis that they are aggrieved and have a higher moral status than others in the same position. So why should we assume that once those people are in, they would voluntarily choose to surrender their own power and status which comes from allegedly being aggrieved? The whole point of DEI was supposedly to "equalize" things so once you are a beneficiary of a DEI policy, you should no longer be able to claim victim status. In fact, once they get in, they argue for even more grievance policies, power, and special treatment. Often that is specifically what the job is meant to do. What is the real end result of this in particular for universities which are gateways to power? It's not surprising that universities are where this battle is being fought and not fast food or retail jobs.