4 ms·

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 respondi

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.
- MockObject 4y ago
  "ne" and "ner"?
  - catapart 4y ago
    Sorry; They are just gender-neutral pronouns, since I don't know the comment author's gender. I find it easiest to parse, when reading, as "she" and "her", in my head, because trying to use "he" and "him" gets me mixed up when I read "ner". I know it's not the common pronouns, and I'm happy to use whatever "xe", "they", or [insert] anyone wants me to use, about them. But when I'm making the editorial decisions based on ignorance (don't know the person's pronouns and have no reasonable way to get them before publishing), I prefer the "ne" pronouns because they don't have the plural confusions* that "they" does, nor do they turn your mouth to mush when you try to pronounce them, like "ze"/"xe". *(heading this off at the pass) yes, "they" is often used singularly. But where "they" can, in contrived instances, be confusing as to whether you mean a group or not, "ne" simply doesn't have that problem. "ne" removes one more complication and I'm all for that. I also prefer plain JS to typescript; I'm aware that "simplicity" is a vice of mine.
    - MockObject 4y ago
      "They" has been used for the unspecified singular in English since long before our births; "ne" is completely unfamiliar and resembles a typo. "The original poster said that their dog bit their cat, and then barked at their TV."
      - catapart 4y ago
        Yes, it has. And can still lead to confusion, in certain instances. I'm not trying to convince you, or anyone else, to write or speak the way I do. And I'm amenable to any specific person or group of persons representing their (<- there's one!) own interests telling me how to describe them. But I'm not particularly interested in etymological diatribes; I've seen them all and understand the arguments. I have made my decisions, and will continue to make my decisions, with all of those arguments in mind. Rest assured that you have nothing to gain by advocating them to me, as a third-party trying to police writing. I use "they" singularly, all the time, just like everyone else. And I use "ne" when I'm specifically acknowledging that I don't know the preferred pronouns, and have been left to fill them in using my own standards.
        pixxel 4y ago
        > I'm not trying to convince you, or anyone else, to write or speak the way I do. This isn’t about you. We speak English on this forum, in fact it’s a requirement, please use it.
        catapart 4y ago
        I'm sorry that you think you have a say in that. But I'll speak however I want to. Your criticism on this matter means nothing to me, so fire away.
- evandale 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". What is equity then? Everything I've read on the subject defines it as being equality of outcome. Every definition I find contrasts it to equality being the equality of opportunity and that the focus of equity is a focus on equality of outcome. You're saying it doesn't mean what every source definition I can find says. So what does it mean if I can't even trust the first page of Google results?

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.

MockObject 4y ago
"ne" and "ner"?
- catapart 4y ago
  Sorry; They are just gender-neutral pronouns, since I don't know the comment author's gender. I find it easiest to parse, when reading, as "she" and "her", in my head, because trying to use "he" and "him" gets me mixed up when I read "ner". I know it's not the common pronouns, and I'm happy to use whatever "xe", "they", or [insert] anyone wants me to use, about them. But when I'm making the editorial decisions based on ignorance (don't know the person's pronouns and have no reasonable way to get them before publishing), I prefer the "ne" pronouns because they don't have the plural confusions* that "they" does, nor do they turn your mouth to mush when you try to pronounce them, like "ze"/"xe". *(heading this off at the pass) yes, "they" is often used singularly. But where "they" can, in contrived instances, be confusing as to whether you mean a group or not, "ne" simply doesn't have that problem. "ne" removes one more complication and I'm all for that. I also prefer plain JS to typescript; I'm aware that "simplicity" is a vice of mine.
  - MockObject 4y ago
    "They" has been used for the unspecified singular in English since long before our births; "ne" is completely unfamiliar and resembles a typo. "The original poster said that their dog bit their cat, and then barked at their TV."
    - catapart 4y ago
      Yes, it has. And can still lead to confusion, in certain instances. I'm not trying to convince you, or anyone else, to write or speak the way I do. And I'm amenable to any specific person or group of persons representing their (<- there's one!) own interests telling me how to describe them. But I'm not particularly interested in etymological diatribes; I've seen them all and understand the arguments. I have made my decisions, and will continue to make my decisions, with all of those arguments in mind. Rest assured that you have nothing to gain by advocating them to me, as a third-party trying to police writing. I use "they" singularly, all the time, just like everyone else. And I use "ne" when I'm specifically acknowledging that I don't know the preferred pronouns, and have been left to fill them in using my own standards.
      - pixxel 4y ago
        > I'm not trying to convince you, or anyone else, to write or speak the way I do. This isn’t about you. We speak English on this forum, in fact it’s a requirement, please use it.
        catapart 4y ago
        I'm sorry that you think you have a say in that. But I'll speak however I want to. Your criticism on this matter means nothing to me, so fire away.
evandale 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". What is equity then? Everything I've read on the subject defines it as being equality of outcome. Every definition I find contrasts it to equality being the equality of opportunity and that the focus of equity is a focus on equality of outcome. You're saying it doesn't mean what every source definition I can find says. So what does it mean if I can't even trust the first page of Google results?