5 ms·

But it's not about people signing a thing saying they won't be racist. Since I know you read the article, I'm sure you saw the bit about someone penalizing a c

But it's not about people signing a thing saying they won't be racist. Since I know you read the article, I'm sure you saw the bit about someone penalizing a candidate for saying that "he respects his students and treats them equally." People can now quote the I Have A Dream Speech as part of their application essay and be branded racist for daring to say we should judge people by the content of their character. Whether it's coordinated or not is irrelevant - there is a group of people that push a particular subjective world view on others not just on not being racist but how one should not be racist. Life doesn't have a liberal bias. If you think so, then either you are surrounding yourself by too many people that think exactly the same way you do (which kind of misses the point on diversity), or you have created an environment in which there are people who think differently than you, but are reluctant to actually speak their mind.

catapart 4y ago
Babe, I live in ruby-red Texas. You're barking up the wrong tree with that "surrounded by alike-thought" nonsense. If you don't find that life has a liberal bias, then you haven't lived enough of it. And - for the record - that's not even a "progressive" jab; it's a reference to a complaint by a conservative. It's not like this is a partisan opinion; this is something conservative think-tanks constantly whine about. In any case, the thing you ommitted from your quote - where the guy said DEI isn't important (because he "treats students equally") - is the problem area. Just like it would be if you said "Oh, I don't need to keep my gun unloaded. I practice trigger safety." It's not that trigger safety is bad; but any gun enthusiast would be very unsatisfied with that answer.
- goatlover 4y ago
  Why should treating students equally be unsatisfactory? That was the goal for decades after the civil rights until recently when DEI became all the rage, and all of a sudden now equality isn't enough. You have to be pro-equity, which seems to be outcome-based instead of opportunity-based. Which is a very different idea of equality. It's ideological, and I don't see why university professors need to be making statements in it's favor.
  - catapart 4y ago
    >"seems to be" But see, it isn't. You've got an axe to grind; I get it. I just don't care that you don't like DEI for these slippery-slope, made-up reasons you have, in your head. Learn what DEI is actually about. Then learn what the interviews actually produced (read: get your information from as many different sources as you can; not "one", even if it supports your bias). Then learn how the interview results correspond to the associated DEI standards. THEN you can speak constructively about what points are being misconstrued, which ones are being purposefully distorted, which ones are being ignored, and which other actions are unrelated to DEI and are only using it as a way to cover for politically-motivated actions. OR, just go on believing that this "confirmation" doesn't have anything to do with your "bias", and believe it wholesale. Whatever floats your boat, dog.
    - evandale 4y ago
      From my understanding the "E" in DEI stands for equity. Equity favours equality of outcome over equality of opportunity. How does the commenter you're responding to have it wrong and what is DEI really about if it doesn't include equity?
      - catapart 4y ago
        I didn't contend that DEI discludes equity. I made the point that "equity" isn't what the commenter said it "seems to be". As in, ne said it seemed to be "outcome-based instead of opportunity-based". It's a complicated subject but I don't think any earnest reading of the tenets of DEI can be summarized as "outcome based" and especially not in place of "opportunity based". It immediately sets up a false dichotomy which implies a certain shallowness to the interpretation. Which is why my response took aim at the "axe to grind"; it sets up the foundation for the larger complaint (that professors shouldn't be employed based on ideological conformity), which makes that complaint resting on an un-validated argument. If ne wants to make that argument, ne needs to validate ner accusation, or refactor it to not be reliant upon a shallow understanding of DEI.
        4y ago
- hcurtiss 4y ago
  As an aside -- and maybe I'm missing it -- but I am a gun enthusiast and a competitive shooter with extensive police training. I keep one in the chamber and expect others would too.

catapart 4y ago

Babe, I live in ruby-red Texas. You're barking up the wrong tree with that "surrounded by alike-thought" nonsense. If you don't find that life has a liberal bias, then you haven't lived enough of it. And - for the record - that's not even a "progressive" jab; it's a reference to a complaint by a conservative. It's not like this is a partisan opinion; this is something conservative think-tanks constantly whine about. In any case, the thing you ommitted from your quote - where the guy said DEI isn't important (because he "treats students equally") - is the problem area. Just like it would be if you said "Oh, I don't need to keep my gun unloaded. I practice trigger safety." It's not that trigger safety is bad; but any gun enthusiast would be very unsatisfied with that answer.

goatlover 4y ago
Why should treating students equally be unsatisfactory? That was the goal for decades after the civil rights until recently when DEI became all the rage, and all of a sudden now equality isn't enough. You have to be pro-equity, which seems to be outcome-based instead of opportunity-based. Which is a very different idea of equality. It's ideological, and I don't see why university professors need to be making statements in it's favor.
- catapart 4y ago
  >"seems to be" But see, it isn't. You've got an axe to grind; I get it. I just don't care that you don't like DEI for these slippery-slope, made-up reasons you have, in your head. Learn what DEI is actually about. Then learn what the interviews actually produced (read: get your information from as many different sources as you can; not "one", even if it supports your bias). Then learn how the interview results correspond to the associated DEI standards. THEN you can speak constructively about what points are being misconstrued, which ones are being purposefully distorted, which ones are being ignored, and which other actions are unrelated to DEI and are only using it as a way to cover for politically-motivated actions. OR, just go on believing that this "confirmation" doesn't have anything to do with your "bias", and believe it wholesale. Whatever floats your boat, dog.
  - evandale 4y ago
    From my understanding the "E" in DEI stands for equity. Equity favours equality of outcome over equality of opportunity. How does the commenter you're responding to have it wrong and what is DEI really about if it doesn't include equity?
    - catapart 4y ago
      I didn't contend that DEI discludes equity. I made the point that "equity" isn't what the commenter said it "seems to be". As in, ne said it seemed to be "outcome-based instead of opportunity-based". It's a complicated subject but I don't think any earnest reading of the tenets of DEI can be summarized as "outcome based" and especially not in place of "opportunity based". It immediately sets up a false dichotomy which implies a certain shallowness to the interpretation. Which is why my response took aim at the "axe to grind"; it sets up the foundation for the larger complaint (that professors shouldn't be employed based on ideological conformity), which makes that complaint resting on an un-validated argument. If ne wants to make that argument, ne needs to validate ner accusation, or refactor it to not be reliant upon a shallow understanding of DEI.
      - 4y ago
hcurtiss 4y ago
As an aside -- and maybe I'm missing it -- but I am a gun enthusiast and a competitive shooter with extensive police training. I keep one in the chamber and expect others would too.