11 ms·

DEI Brings Kafka to My Law School

59 points by arbuge 3y ago

deadeye 3y ago
Are administrators getting dumber? If they're going to try to strong arm a professor for his personal opinions, why would they think it would work against a LAW professor?
- lagniappe 3y ago
  We're living in an age where the accusation means more than the substance of the transgression, whether it took place or not. In the court of public opinion, everyone is a defendant.
- hnfong 3y ago
  It's not like the administrators will have to take personal responsibility if they break some labor laws along the way...
- the_third_wave 3y ago
  > Are administrators getting dumber? They are getting more numerous by the day, outnumbering researchers by a wide margin. "Quantity has a quality of its own" said Joseph Stalin, alluding to the huge numbers of men he could put into the field. They have seen how just a few or even a single student protesting some perceived transgression can get the institute to cave to their will so what is to keep them from getting a law professor to heel?
7174n6 3y ago
What everyone misses is that they don't care they are violating the law. It doesn't matter. They will pay whatever fines or verdicts result. Conformity is their goal...at whatever cost! The message is clear...get in line or you're next.
- throw9away6 3y ago
  Colleges are run like corporations and this is the cost of doing business. Fines are just a minor inconvenience.
Taikonerd 3y ago
I've been reconsidering my ideas about tenure recently. If you asked me a couple years ago, I would have told you that I was opposed to the idea of tenure. I thought it created a two-tier system: a relative handful of older professors who have made it and can basically coast, versus the untenured professors who do most of the grunt work. But now I'm seeing that tenure can actually provide valuable protection for professors. Teaching in non-STEM subjects is ideological; it has to come from some viewpoint. And without tenure, it can reduce down to "teach your subject from the viewpoint the administrators want, or you're fired." I realize that ONU is trying to fire Prof. Gerber, but at least he has some protections that are allowing him to fight back. From the article: "insufficient “collegiality” isn’t listed as adequate cause in ONU’s faculty handbook for dismissing a tenured faculty member...."
- tivert 3y ago
  > But now I'm seeing that tenure can actually provide valuable protection for professors. Teaching in non-STEM subjects is ideological; it has to come from some viewpoint. And without tenure, it can reduce down to "teach your subject from the viewpoint the administrators want, or you're fired." Though with tenure, it seems to reduce down to "teach your subject from the viewpoint the administrators want," but with the lag of about a generation. It just means conformity is enforced in hiring and by more difficult firing process. It might actually be an improvement in some ways to get rid of tenure because it would make things worse is a way that would make them clear. If you're in a Communist country being taught Communism by a Communist professor, if you have any understanding of the system at all, it's hard to deceive yourself into believing that Communist viewpoint is anything but propaganda from the powers-that-be. Tenure and other aspects of "academic freedom" can be undermined, but provide enough cover to allow students to deceive themselves into thinking they're being taught a truth that isn't politically-defined.
- LegitShady 3y ago
  > Teaching in non-STEM subjects is ideological; it has to come from some viewpoint. And without tenure, it can reduce down to "teach your subject from the viewpoint the administrators want, or you're fired." Similarly it can be used to entrench any position into the faculty. The university decides who gets tenure and only offer tenure to the people with the 'right sort of thinking' and now those are the only people around and willing to speak.
DiscourseFan 3y ago
https://archive.is/8SGBs https://archive.is/8SGBs
DiscourseFan 3y ago
[flagged]
lordfrito 3y ago
It's a new era of McCarthyism we're dealing with... I thought that America had grown beyond this kind of bullying, but apparently the lessons have to be re-learned. It's the brazen power-seeking by (and demanded submission to) the DEI crowd that scares me. They are willing to use the power to reshape culture and thought. It's going to get worse before it gets better. We need a "have you no decency sir" moment.
- mc32 3y ago
  The scary part is some time ago I had an interview and the interviewer very proudly mentioned that their researchers devoted as much time to DEI as they did to their research (I presume this was somewhat of an exaggeration, But I could not tell). I did not know what to say, but I can only wish them luck competing against those who have more resolve toward actually doing research.
  - starkd 3y ago
    Hence, the requirements they have a DEI office in order to get funding.
- ngc248 3y ago
  These DEI programs are like those political offices from USSR. Now every company/college needs to have a DEI team, hire and train those people. You have an entire DEI eco-system of consultants who provide training services etc
sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
The nature of the firing, with security and police escorts and such, made me wonder what kind of history preceded this incident. A search for "scott gerber onu" turned up this summary [1] of a lawsuit filed by Mr. Gerber against ONU in 2017. The gist appears to be that a colleague put a hand on his shoulder to get his attention and Mr. Gerber interpreted this as an assault. The court disagreed with his interpretation, as did the US 6th Circuit upon appeal. The nature of the firing makes a lot more sense if this is an individual with a history of reacting to common workplace interactions with legal action. I have a feeling his overall claim of being fired solely because of his opinions about diversity is about as valid as his claims of being assaulted. [1] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-6th-circuit/1871365.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-6th-circuit/1871365.htm...
- potmat 3y ago
  Possibly, but the fact that they are refusing to tell him why he's being removed makes this suspicious. Seems like they would not need to hide it if the reason was "you're being removed due to excessive litigation against the school and your peers". They would have a reason to hide "you're being removed because you disagree with us". This is all just speculation of course.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
    We only really have his word for that. We have him saying that he was told that if he didn't resign, dismissal proceedings would start. We have him saying that the only reason he was given for starting a dismissal proceeding was "collegiality". His past behavior is likely causing the administration to be very, very cautious about what is said by who and where because anything touching this individual will likely result in legal action.
    - dpifke 3y ago
      We have his lawyers' word for it as well: https://www.thefire.org/news/professor-suspended-reasons-unknown-even-him https://www.thefire.org/news/professor-suspended-reasons-unk... The university is also refusing to tell them the nature of their "investigation." (The non-profit organization FIRE and the legal firms involved here are extremely reputable. If the university is afraid of being sued, their apparent aversion to anything resembling due process would seem to be having the opposite effect.)
Aloha 3y ago
I am increasingly skeptical that DEI programs in colleges actually increases Diversity, Equity or Inclusion - it often seems to play out as an increasingly tokenistic set of measures that make people feel good, over meaningful improvements in improving equity, and cross-cultural/cross-racial understanding and growth. While I cannot speak to this case (and I'm somewhat skeptical being that its published in the form on a WSJ op-ed), I do think that in general terms the DEI Raj on campuses is just another way to increase the power of the administration over the faculty and raise the cost of a college education yet further. As someone who is generally left, I'm used to the scolds being on the right, now they seem to be in my tent too, and I'm a bit flummoxed on how to make them either moderate or leave - overt actions to do so are often met with a virtual firing squad of people who I otherwise agree with 75-80%. In the end, I think the new racialism (racial discrimination is at the root of all problems) distracts from the larger problem of poverty, which is so intertwined with racism that you cant begin to tackle the unsolved problems racism without making substantial progress on solving poverty first.
- local_crmdgeon 3y ago
  DEI programs serve to further the demand for DEI administrators. Per the Iron Law of Institutions, that's all it needs to do for the programs to grow wildly.
- 908B64B197 3y ago
  > I am increasingly skeptical that DEI programs in colleges actually increases Diversity, Equity or Inclusion I'm starting to think there's more harm than good with DEI programs. It creates two categories of students (and grads) when looking at hiring: people you know are there on merit and people who maybe got a little bit of help from "the quota". I've heard it (in engineering only meetings) "you know this guy is solid, he went to X and he's Asian so you know he's there for the right reasons". And the thing is, you can't really argue with that logic. Something I have to wonder is are women and minorities... ok with this? US tax payers have voted against these practices often in the past. But elsewhere like in Canada it's now law that research grants have a racial and gender quota. Government will deny you funding if there are too many white male investigators, no matter how good the research is.
- 3y ago
zerotolerance 3y ago
One-sided speculation where vagaries play to the person's admitted agenda? No tech or business relation? Nothing to do with hacking in the slightest? This is not news. While I'm not shocked to see this out of WSJ, I'm a bit surprised to see this on the FP.
- vannevar 3y ago
  Agreed, this is basically a case of someone getting fired and escorted from the building, something that happens all the time. If he has a case against the university, he'll get his day in court. He wasn't arrested, he wasn't tried, he certainly wasn't executed. The reference to Kafka comes off as self-indulgent martyrdom.
Simulacra 3y ago
DEI is about power, not inclusion and diversity. The programs were established, built, and funded to give power to groups that are perceived to be marginalized. Instead of working to equalize and support those groups, it has instead become a club of power for those groups to club companies, universities, etc. into supporting whatever goal they seek to do. The goal of every program is survival and DEI programs survive by subjugating others.
the_third_wave 3y ago
These D.E.I. apparatchiks are just the latest incarnation of the Nomenklatura [1] as it existed in the Soviet Union. They are Party-approved commissars who serve the dual purpose of keeping society on its toes to be in line with current Party doctrine as well as creating employment opportunities for those who dedicate their lives and careers to the Party. While the narrative might be somewhat different - protecting "the revolution" against "reactionary forces" versus protecting "marginalised and oppressed minorities" against "white supremacy" - the rest of the spiel is largely identical and aimed at taking and consolidating power. Just like in the Soviet Union the narrative is just that, a narrative to keep up appearances while the real aim is to gain as much power [2] as feasible. Just like in the Soviet Union there can never be an end to those "threats" to (Soviet Union) "the revolution" or (D.E.I.) "marginalised and oppressed minorities" since it is though those supposed threats that they justify their own importance. Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov was right, his predictions [3] have mostly come to pass: “As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore,” said Bezmenov. “A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures; even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him [a] concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it, until he [receives] a kick in his fan-bottom. When a military boot crashes his balls then he will understand. But not before that. That’s the [tragedy] of the situation of demoralization.” It’s hard not to see in that the state of many modern Americans. We have become a society of polarized tribes, with some people flat out rejecting facts in favor of narratives and opinions. Indeed, and that was in 1984. Once demoralization is completed, the second stage of ideological brainwashing is “destabilization”. During this two-to-five-year period, asserted Bezmenov, what matters is the targeting of essential structural elements of a nation: economy, foreign relations, and defense systems. Basically, the subverter (Russia) would look to destabilize every one of those areas in the United States, considerably weakening it. Bezemov thought of Russia being the subverter but it seems that the USA and to a certain extent the west has proven itself to be capable of subverting itself without the need for more foreign assistance. The third stage would be “crisis.” It would take only up to six weeks to send a country into crisis, explained Bezmenov. The crisis would bring “a violent change of power, structure, and economy” and will be followed by the last stage, “normalization.” That’s when your country is basically taken over, living under a new ideology and reality. This will happen to America unless it gets rid of people who will bring it to a crisis, warned Bezmenov. What’s more “if people will fail to grasp the impending danger of that development, nothing ever can help [the] United States,” adding, “You may kiss goodbye to your freedom.” [1] https://communistcrimes.org/en/elite-and-their-privileges-soviet-union https://communistcrimes.org/en/elite-and-their-privileges-so... [2] https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-power-systemic/ https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-power-systemic/ [3] https://bigthink.com/the-present/yuri-bezmenov/ https://bigthink.com/the-present/yuri-bezmenov/
iamdamian 3y ago
I'm not sure yet whether to be concerned about this particular example or not. I am concerned about DEI being used as a sort of backdoor for bad ideas being accepted and enforced in the workplace or university. There's a real chance, in my mind, for DEI to justify actions that we normally consider unethical: suppressing or compelling speech, unjustly firing people, excluding people who don't think like us from positions of power. But I'm not sure how often this happens. I do see plenty of headlines that make bold, negative claims about DEI, but they seem to fall apart under scrutiny. So I'm curious: what specifically are we concerned about with this article? And is anyone aware of a list tracking egregious but solid examples of DEI-run-amok?
- onos 3y ago
  Subscribe to Bari Weiss’s substack (free press) and you’ll get an article about this every other day. Her backlogs will give a fairly lengthy list, but certainly not exhaustive.
  - iamdamian 3y ago
    Thanks for the pointer, I will do that. I followed Bari early on after she left the Times, and I was always intrigued by the examples she brought up of unjust actions taken in the workpace or university in the name of 'wokeness'. That said, I noticed that some of these examples didn't hold up to scrutiny, at least in my eyes. What I mean is that actions taken in those cases seemed justified to me, even without relying on DEI or 'wokeness'. A couple of years have passed now, though, so it does seem like I should take a second look.
    - Aloha 3y ago
      bear in mind, Bari is not a neutral player and has an ideological axe to grind. Just like I dont consider the source for this (the WSJ Opinions are only slightly less unhinged than NRO) to be ideologically neutral.
      - onos 3y ago
Dig1t 3y ago
>The administration responded, brusquely, that viewpoint diversity is “not part of our diversity, belonging and inclusion plan.” It’s so jarring to hear this, viewpoint diversity was the primary selling point for diversity in general in the corporate world until very recently. I can’t tell you how many times I heard the case that hiring non-white people made the company stronger because people with different backgrounds being different perspectives and that makes products better etc. Now it seems that that pretense has been dropped and it’s just about skin color now.

59 points by arbuge 3y ago

Are administrators getting dumber? If they're going to try to strong arm a professor for his personal opinions, why would they think it would work against a LAW professor?

lagniappe 3y ago
We're living in an age where the accusation means more than the substance of the transgression, whether it took place or not. In the court of public opinion, everyone is a defendant.
hnfong 3y ago
It's not like the administrators will have to take personal responsibility if they break some labor laws along the way...
the_third_wave 3y ago
> Are administrators getting dumber? They are getting more numerous by the day, outnumbering researchers by a wide margin. "Quantity has a quality of its own" said Joseph Stalin, alluding to the huge numbers of men he could put into the field. They have seen how just a few or even a single student protesting some perceived transgression can get the institute to cave to their will so what is to keep them from getting a law professor to heel?

7174n6 3y ago

What everyone misses is that they don't care they are violating the law. It doesn't matter. They will pay whatever fines or verdicts result. Conformity is their goal...at whatever cost! The message is clear...get in line or you're next.

throw9away6 3y ago
Colleges are run like corporations and this is the cost of doing business. Fines are just a minor inconvenience.

Taikonerd 3y ago

I've been reconsidering my ideas about tenure recently. If you asked me a couple years ago, I would have told you that I was opposed to the idea of tenure. I thought it created a two-tier system: a relative handful of older professors who have made it and can basically coast, versus the untenured professors who do most of the grunt work. But now I'm seeing that tenure can actually provide valuable protection for professors. Teaching in non-STEM subjects is ideological; it has to come from some viewpoint. And without tenure, it can reduce down to "teach your subject from the viewpoint the administrators want, or you're fired." I realize that ONU is trying to fire Prof. Gerber, but at least he has some protections that are allowing him to fight back. From the article: "insufficient “collegiality” isn’t listed as adequate cause in ONU’s faculty handbook for dismissing a tenured faculty member...."

tivert 3y ago
> But now I'm seeing that tenure can actually provide valuable protection for professors. Teaching in non-STEM subjects is ideological; it has to come from some viewpoint. And without tenure, it can reduce down to "teach your subject from the viewpoint the administrators want, or you're fired." Though with tenure, it seems to reduce down to "teach your subject from the viewpoint the administrators want," but with the lag of about a generation. It just means conformity is enforced in hiring and by more difficult firing process. It might actually be an improvement in some ways to get rid of tenure because it would make things worse is a way that would make them clear. If you're in a Communist country being taught Communism by a Communist professor, if you have any understanding of the system at all, it's hard to deceive yourself into believing that Communist viewpoint is anything but propaganda from the powers-that-be. Tenure and other aspects of "academic freedom" can be undermined, but provide enough cover to allow students to deceive themselves into thinking they're being taught a truth that isn't politically-defined.
LegitShady 3y ago
> Teaching in non-STEM subjects is ideological; it has to come from some viewpoint. And without tenure, it can reduce down to "teach your subject from the viewpoint the administrators want, or you're fired." Similarly it can be used to entrench any position into the faculty. The university decides who gets tenure and only offer tenure to the people with the 'right sort of thinking' and now those are the only people around and willing to speak.

DiscourseFan 3y ago

https://archive.is/8SGBs https://archive.is/8SGBs

DiscourseFan 3y ago

[flagged]

lordfrito 3y ago

It's a new era of McCarthyism we're dealing with... I thought that America had grown beyond this kind of bullying, but apparently the lessons have to be re-learned. It's the brazen power-seeking by (and demanded submission to) the DEI crowd that scares me. They are willing to use the power to reshape culture and thought. It's going to get worse before it gets better. We need a "have you no decency sir" moment.

mc32 3y ago
The scary part is some time ago I had an interview and the interviewer very proudly mentioned that their researchers devoted as much time to DEI as they did to their research (I presume this was somewhat of an exaggeration, But I could not tell). I did not know what to say, but I can only wish them luck competing against those who have more resolve toward actually doing research.
- starkd 3y ago
  Hence, the requirements they have a DEI office in order to get funding.
ngc248 3y ago
These DEI programs are like those political offices from USSR. Now every company/college needs to have a DEI team, hire and train those people. You have an entire DEI eco-system of consultants who provide training services etc

sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago

The nature of the firing, with security and police escorts and such, made me wonder what kind of history preceded this incident. A search for "scott gerber onu" turned up this summary [1] of a lawsuit filed by Mr. Gerber against ONU in 2017. The gist appears to be that a colleague put a hand on his shoulder to get his attention and Mr. Gerber interpreted this as an assault. The court disagreed with his interpretation, as did the US 6th Circuit upon appeal. The nature of the firing makes a lot more sense if this is an individual with a history of reacting to common workplace interactions with legal action. I have a feeling his overall claim of being fired solely because of his opinions about diversity is about as valid as his claims of being assaulted. [1] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-6th-circuit/1871365.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-6th-circuit/1871365.htm...

potmat 3y ago
Possibly, but the fact that they are refusing to tell him why he's being removed makes this suspicious. Seems like they would not need to hide it if the reason was "you're being removed due to excessive litigation against the school and your peers". They would have a reason to hide "you're being removed because you disagree with us". This is all just speculation of course.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
  We only really have his word for that. We have him saying that he was told that if he didn't resign, dismissal proceedings would start. We have him saying that the only reason he was given for starting a dismissal proceeding was "collegiality". His past behavior is likely causing the administration to be very, very cautious about what is said by who and where because anything touching this individual will likely result in legal action.
  - dpifke 3y ago
    We have his lawyers' word for it as well: https://www.thefire.org/news/professor-suspended-reasons-unknown-even-him https://www.thefire.org/news/professor-suspended-reasons-unk... The university is also refusing to tell them the nature of their "investigation." (The non-profit organization FIRE and the legal firms involved here are extremely reputable. If the university is afraid of being sued, their apparent aversion to anything resembling due process would seem to be having the opposite effect.)

Aloha 3y ago

I am increasingly skeptical that DEI programs in colleges actually increases Diversity, Equity or Inclusion - it often seems to play out as an increasingly tokenistic set of measures that make people feel good, over meaningful improvements in improving equity, and cross-cultural/cross-racial understanding and growth. While I cannot speak to this case (and I'm somewhat skeptical being that its published in the form on a WSJ op-ed), I do think that in general terms the DEI Raj on campuses is just another way to increase the power of the administration over the faculty and raise the cost of a college education yet further. As someone who is generally left, I'm used to the scolds being on the right, now they seem to be in my tent too, and I'm a bit flummoxed on how to make them either moderate or leave - overt actions to do so are often met with a virtual firing squad of people who I otherwise agree with 75-80%. In the end, I think the new racialism (racial discrimination is at the root of all problems) distracts from the larger problem of poverty, which is so intertwined with racism that you cant begin to tackle the unsolved problems racism without making substantial progress on solving poverty first.

local_crmdgeon 3y ago
DEI programs serve to further the demand for DEI administrators. Per the Iron Law of Institutions, that's all it needs to do for the programs to grow wildly.
908B64B197 3y ago
> I am increasingly skeptical that DEI programs in colleges actually increases Diversity, Equity or Inclusion I'm starting to think there's more harm than good with DEI programs. It creates two categories of students (and grads) when looking at hiring: people you know are there on merit and people who maybe got a little bit of help from "the quota". I've heard it (in engineering only meetings) "you know this guy is solid, he went to X and he's Asian so you know he's there for the right reasons". And the thing is, you can't really argue with that logic. Something I have to wonder is are women and minorities... ok with this? US tax payers have voted against these practices often in the past. But elsewhere like in Canada it's now law that research grants have a racial and gender quota. Government will deny you funding if there are too many white male investigators, no matter how good the research is.
3y ago

zerotolerance 3y ago

One-sided speculation where vagaries play to the person's admitted agenda? No tech or business relation? Nothing to do with hacking in the slightest? This is not news. While I'm not shocked to see this out of WSJ, I'm a bit surprised to see this on the FP.

vannevar 3y ago
Agreed, this is basically a case of someone getting fired and escorted from the building, something that happens all the time. If he has a case against the university, he'll get his day in court. He wasn't arrested, he wasn't tried, he certainly wasn't executed. The reference to Kafka comes off as self-indulgent martyrdom.

Simulacra 3y ago

DEI is about power, not inclusion and diversity. The programs were established, built, and funded to give power to groups that are perceived to be marginalized. Instead of working to equalize and support those groups, it has instead become a club of power for those groups to club companies, universities, etc. into supporting whatever goal they seek to do. The goal of every program is survival and DEI programs survive by subjugating others.

the_third_wave 3y ago

These D.E.I. apparatchiks are just the latest incarnation of the Nomenklatura [1] as it existed in the Soviet Union. They are Party-approved commissars who serve the dual purpose of keeping society on its toes to be in line with current Party doctrine as well as creating employment opportunities for those who dedicate their lives and careers to the Party. While the narrative might be somewhat different - protecting "the revolution" against "reactionary forces" versus protecting "marginalised and oppressed minorities" against "white supremacy" - the rest of the spiel is largely identical and aimed at taking and consolidating power. Just like in the Soviet Union the narrative is just that, a narrative to keep up appearances while the real aim is to gain as much power [2] as feasible. Just like in the Soviet Union there can never be an end to those "threats" to (Soviet Union) "the revolution" or (D.E.I.) "marginalised and oppressed minorities" since it is though those supposed threats that they justify their own importance. Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov was right, his predictions [3] have mostly come to pass: “As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore,” said Bezmenov. “A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures; even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him [a] concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it, until he [receives] a kick in his fan-bottom. When a military boot crashes his balls then he will understand. But not before that. That’s the [tragedy] of the situation of demoralization.” It’s hard not to see in that the state of many modern Americans. We have become a society of polarized tribes, with some people flat out rejecting facts in favor of narratives and opinions. Indeed, and that was in 1984. Once demoralization is completed, the second stage of ideological brainwashing is “destabilization”. During this two-to-five-year period, asserted Bezmenov, what matters is the targeting of essential structural elements of a nation: economy, foreign relations, and defense systems. Basically, the subverter (Russia) would look to destabilize every one of those areas in the United States, considerably weakening it. Bezemov thought of Russia being the subverter but it seems that the USA and to a certain extent the west has proven itself to be capable of subverting itself without the need for more foreign assistance. The third stage would be “crisis.” It would take only up to six weeks to send a country into crisis, explained Bezmenov. The crisis would bring “a violent change of power, structure, and economy” and will be followed by the last stage, “normalization.” That’s when your country is basically taken over, living under a new ideology and reality. This will happen to America unless it gets rid of people who will bring it to a crisis, warned Bezmenov. What’s more “if people will fail to grasp the impending danger of that development, nothing ever can help [the] United States,” adding, “You may kiss goodbye to your freedom.” [1] https://communistcrimes.org/en/elite-and-their-privileges-soviet-union https://communistcrimes.org/en/elite-and-their-privileges-so... [2] https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-power-systemic/ https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-power-systemic/ [3] https://bigthink.com/the-present/yuri-bezmenov/ https://bigthink.com/the-present/yuri-bezmenov/

iamdamian 3y ago

I'm not sure yet whether to be concerned about this particular example or not. I am concerned about DEI being used as a sort of backdoor for bad ideas being accepted and enforced in the workplace or university. There's a real chance, in my mind, for DEI to justify actions that we normally consider unethical: suppressing or compelling speech, unjustly firing people, excluding people who don't think like us from positions of power. But I'm not sure how often this happens. I do see plenty of headlines that make bold, negative claims about DEI, but they seem to fall apart under scrutiny. So I'm curious: what specifically are we concerned about with this article? And is anyone aware of a list tracking egregious but solid examples of DEI-run-amok?

onos 3y ago
Subscribe to Bari Weiss’s substack (free press) and you’ll get an article about this every other day. Her backlogs will give a fairly lengthy list, but certainly not exhaustive.
- iamdamian 3y ago
  Thanks for the pointer, I will do that. I followed Bari early on after she left the Times, and I was always intrigued by the examples she brought up of unjust actions taken in the workpace or university in the name of 'wokeness'. That said, I noticed that some of these examples didn't hold up to scrutiny, at least in my eyes. What I mean is that actions taken in those cases seemed justified to me, even without relying on DEI or 'wokeness'. A couple of years have passed now, though, so it does seem like I should take a second look.
  - Aloha 3y ago
    bear in mind, Bari is not a neutral player and has an ideological axe to grind. Just like I dont consider the source for this (the WSJ Opinions are only slightly less unhinged than NRO) to be ideologically neutral.
    - onos 3y ago

Dig1t 3y ago

>The administration responded, brusquely, that viewpoint diversity is “not part of our diversity, belonging and inclusion plan.” It’s so jarring to hear this, viewpoint diversity was the primary selling point for diversity in general in the corporate world until very recently. I can’t tell you how many times I heard the case that hiring non-white people made the company stronger because people with different backgrounds being different perspectives and that makes products better etc. Now it seems that that pretense has been dropped and it’s just about skin color now.