7 ms·

Banning DEI offices is great news. I personally find the idea of striving for “equity” abhorrent (meritocracy is the gold standard and no, I do not believe tha

Banning DEI offices is great news. I personally find the idea of striving for “equity” abhorrent (meritocracy is the gold standard and no, I do not believe that we need to make up for an “unequal start to life”) and reducing administrative headcount makes it a win win.

watchface 3y ago
[flagged]
woooooo 3y ago
Banning people from stupid, harmless stuff is bad news though? It annoys me too to see DEI people make stacks off of weaponized bullshit while us engineers keep the lights on, but that's a free business transaction. Why should the state be involved?
- molotovh 3y ago
  "Public universities" means state-run schools. State funding is responsible for their very existence. The state is involved by default.
slibhb 3y ago
I'm opposed to DEI but I'm not sure if states banning it sets a good precedent. As much as possible, the government should leave the academy alone.
- traviswt 3y ago
  Should we stop public funding of education? It feels like that monetary link is what provokes governments to interfere.
tomp 3y ago
It’s actually pretty easy to argue for “equality of opportunity” (i.e. reducing or even making up for an unequal start of life) from a meritocracy viewpoint.
- ajsnigrutin 3y ago
  You should help poor children, no matter what race they are, before those DEI offices are needed for them.
  - cool_dude85 3y ago
    Yes. You should also help black children, no matter their economic status, because they are discriminated against compared to their economic peer groups in many facets of life, including education.
    - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
      So will smiths son should get help, because he's black? ..no matter the millions his dad has?
      - cool_dude85 3y ago
        Yes. Luckily for my argument there are relatively few people who are Will Smith's kids (2, I guess) and relatively many who are, for example, black middle class kids who face significant challenges that their white middle class peers would not. A strictly class-based DEI type program would not acknowledge this reality.
        ajsnigrutin 3y ago
        What about slavs? The irish? Italians?
        cool_dude85 3y ago
        Are we talking about in the present day US? If you can find strong evidence of modern comprehensive anti-slav racism and discrimination then sure, if not then no.
        3y ago
ajsnigrutin 3y ago
I live in a former socialist country, but most of the system has not changed a lot. Most of what USA does, from affirmative action to preferential hiring based on race or any kind of born-with status would be seen as very racist and/or sexist here. Even to get into college, points (from grades and standardized testing) are the only thing taken in consideration in most colleges (visual arts, acting, and music being notable exceptions).
- watchface 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
    Depends on what you consider a continent... considering where we slavs came from originally, we did kill a bunch of people before we settled here, and we've also been used as slaves by other cultures, then killed a bunch of other cultures, also killed a bunch of our own cultures, and in more recent times, a bunch of germans, took away almost everything from everyone, gave it to the government, then a few decades of peace then a bit more of killing ourselves again. So basically the same as any other country. edit: but it seems you expect people who never owned slaves to give their spot to people who never were slaves.
    - ethbr0 3y ago
      The issue with slavery is that the children of slaves and victims of racism are still affected by it economically. I consider myself middle-of-the-road on most of this stuff, but if everything were fair there'd be an equivalent wealth distribution when comparing races. There's not. Ergo, it's kind of like the British plundering everyone's stuff, sticking it in the British Museum, then declaring "We're done with all that racism stuff, but we're keeping all this stuff that's ours."
      - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
        But does your theory include slavs too? I mean.. the word 'slave' is similar for a reason. What about the irish? Italians? What about young british Bobby or Billy, whos alcoholic single mother moved to USA, and now they both live in a trailer park in bumfuck arizona? Should he be excluded since someone somehwere did something, and that someone lived on the same island as his ancestors did?
nrb 3y ago
> meritocracy is the gold standard and no, I do not believe that we need to make up for an “unequal start to life” In labor markets, sure. But isn’t merit for a youth largely built through education? Certainly feels like full-blown meritocracy without accounting for equality of opportunity is for some a self-fulfilling prophecy and for others a catch-22. At any rate probably a recipe for supercharging wealth inequality.
- mdorazio 3y ago
  Here's the corollary of that: how does typical DEI actually help equality of opportunity? Put another way, do you think a black student from a wealthy family in San Jose or a poor white student from rural Alabama needs more help? Now show me a real-world DEI program that would help the white student instead of the black one.
  - curbstompanazi 3y ago
    [dead]
  - nrb 3y ago
    My statement was in regard to the posters overall philosophy on equity and not any particular DEI program. I would agree that most would probably fail that test, does they mean we need blanket bans on equity programs or more effective ones?
    - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
      If the programs are based on race instead of eg. financial status, access to education, etc., then yeah, banning them would help little white Bobby from a trailer park, because he currently can't get that help because of his skin color.
      - rschneid 3y ago
        I used to think this way too; until I recently noticed it was a false dichotomy! There is plenty of room to be spent on money for impoverished youngsters of any background and we should be petitioning our politicians to spend MORE OVERALL on youth, education, and nourishment programs. It doesn't have to be a zero-sum, but our politicians don't want us to realize this... American in particular needs nourishment funding for all socioecon/demographic classes.
teux 3y ago
Can you explain what is bad about DEI offices, using tangible examples? Who do they hurt?
- gotoeleven 3y ago
  https://stanforddaily.com/2023/04/05/judge-duncan-stanford-law-school-explained/ https://stanforddaily.com/2023/04/05/judge-duncan-stanford-l...
- iinnPP 3y ago
  Poor people of all races.
  - teux 3y ago
    Would love some more info, maybe sources. DEI isn’t only focused on race. And even if so, if there are more statistically distributed poor people of one race getting by than another, that is a problem. https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/23/race-and-admissions-ut-austin-last-five-years/ https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/23/race-and-admissions-... > Black and Hispanics make up just 14 percent of students admitted from outside the automatic threshold, even though they make up 60 percent of Texas high school graduates. Meanwhile, white and Asian students make up 73 percent of non-automatically admitted students, while they make up 39 percent of Texas high school graduates overall.
- candiodari 3y ago
  DEI is about what you "are", and reduces what you do/did/can/... to stuff that was decided when you were born. In a perfect "DEI" world, your status would be decided the moment you are conceived and would be utterly unchangeable. It's fundamentally a status game. It's about "blood", what blood, skin, hair, ... you're born with. DEI has advanced in society to the point that, ironically, it's not tolerant of other viewpoints. And the ideology doesn't see this as a problem, in fact like all zero-merit ideologies (meaning they don't value individuals at all, and certainly not on personal achievement), they're actively proud of being bullies. Except this is a bullies club where entry is based on your genes. DEI as "let's make a meritocracy more meritocratic" is great. Fantastic even. And it certainly was a necessity. DEI appears to not be that, anymore. And even this is disregarding that DEI is at least partially a coverup for dumb spending cuts by government. Or that it's failing. The advancement of DEI is certainly not making the poor better off.
8note 3y ago
The highest merit is being rich, yeah? Why bother letting poor people in, you can filter to the best by charging 2M in tuition per year
- megaman821 3y ago
  More the half the comments here are mentioning helping the poor in a colorblind way. Also, those big headline tuition numbers are only paid by the rich which basically subsides those with financial need.
santaanawinds 3y ago
[dead]
lapcat 3y ago
> meritocracy is the gold standard Meritocracy is a dystopia that we somehow warped into its opposite, a utopia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy This seems to happen with many philosophical ideas: Christianity has become staunchly capitalist, the direct opposite of everything that Jesus taught; Communism, the dictatorship of the working class, became the dictatorship of the non-working elite class, etc.
happytoexplain 3y ago
I agree that meritocracy is the gold standard and that diversity programs usually have problems in direct proportion to how much concrete action they actually take. However, equity is obviously good, and is not mutually exclusive with meritocracy. You kind of imply agreement there, using quotes to imply that people strive for a false kind of equity, but then you say "no, I do not believe that we need to make up for an 'unequal start to life'", which is exactly the type of equity that is compatible with meritocracy. It's the key part of your post, but it doesn't really stand on its own without some kind of explanation. It's kind of like saying, "There is no such thing as an 8-foot-tall bird. And no, ostriches don't count."
- g42gregory 3y ago
  Why do you assume that equity is obviously good? I think it's the equality (equal opportunity) that is good, not the equity (equal achievement).
shrimp_emoji 3y ago
I hate to say it, but I agree. I internalized why affirmative action and equity are awkwardly unjust in the short-term but more just and better in the long-term, but I don't think that we, as a society, are convinced that the ends justify the means. It feels good to try to be colorblind, for example, even if critical theory would blackpill you that you can't really be colorblind and you're lying to yourself. But any alternative is socially unsustainable precisely because we resent racism. As a society, I don't think we can psychologically afford social engineering projects like affirmative action. The insecurity and resentment they breed feel really bad and are huge powder kegs for political strife. So it's probably better to not do them.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
invalidname 3y ago
How do you measure merit? Honest question. I don't care about DEI. Not an American either. Just the whole "meritocracy" argument seems like it's a bit problematic. In arts merit is really problematic but even in sciences and math. A person with the "right connections" can find himself collaborating with the best scientists and in the best labs. Whereas a person with bad connections might be unable to afford the networking even if they do get a scholarship to the best school. Even in "objective" grading. Is the grade of the student who worked all night to afford school equivalent to the one who had a private tutor and all the free time to study? To be clear: I don't have the answer for this. But I don't think anyone has. It seems to me that a lot of people use this word as a cudgel rather than use a more nuanced individual distinction. Which I agree, doesn't scale well.

watchface 3y ago

[flagged]

woooooo 3y ago

Banning people from stupid, harmless stuff is bad news though? It annoys me too to see DEI people make stacks off of weaponized bullshit while us engineers keep the lights on, but that's a free business transaction. Why should the state be involved?

molotovh 3y ago
"Public universities" means state-run schools. State funding is responsible for their very existence. The state is involved by default.

slibhb 3y ago

I'm opposed to DEI but I'm not sure if states banning it sets a good precedent. As much as possible, the government should leave the academy alone.

traviswt 3y ago
Should we stop public funding of education? It feels like that monetary link is what provokes governments to interfere.

tomp 3y ago

It’s actually pretty easy to argue for “equality of opportunity” (i.e. reducing or even making up for an unequal start of life) from a meritocracy viewpoint.

ajsnigrutin 3y ago
You should help poor children, no matter what race they are, before those DEI offices are needed for them.
- cool_dude85 3y ago
  Yes. You should also help black children, no matter their economic status, because they are discriminated against compared to their economic peer groups in many facets of life, including education.
  - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
    So will smiths son should get help, because he's black? ..no matter the millions his dad has?
    - cool_dude85 3y ago
      Yes. Luckily for my argument there are relatively few people who are Will Smith's kids (2, I guess) and relatively many who are, for example, black middle class kids who face significant challenges that their white middle class peers would not. A strictly class-based DEI type program would not acknowledge this reality.
      - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
        What about slavs? The irish? Italians?
        cool_dude85 3y ago
        Are we talking about in the present day US? If you can find strong evidence of modern comprehensive anti-slav racism and discrimination then sure, if not then no.
        3y ago

ajsnigrutin 3y ago

I live in a former socialist country, but most of the system has not changed a lot. Most of what USA does, from affirmative action to preferential hiring based on race or any kind of born-with status would be seen as very racist and/or sexist here. Even to get into college, points (from grades and standardized testing) are the only thing taken in consideration in most colleges (visual arts, acting, and music being notable exceptions).

watchface 3y ago
[flagged]
- ajsnigrutin 3y ago
  Depends on what you consider a continent... considering where we slavs came from originally, we did kill a bunch of people before we settled here, and we've also been used as slaves by other cultures, then killed a bunch of other cultures, also killed a bunch of our own cultures, and in more recent times, a bunch of germans, took away almost everything from everyone, gave it to the government, then a few decades of peace then a bit more of killing ourselves again. So basically the same as any other country. edit: but it seems you expect people who never owned slaves to give their spot to people who never were slaves.
  - ethbr0 3y ago
    The issue with slavery is that the children of slaves and victims of racism are still affected by it economically. I consider myself middle-of-the-road on most of this stuff, but if everything were fair there'd be an equivalent wealth distribution when comparing races. There's not. Ergo, it's kind of like the British plundering everyone's stuff, sticking it in the British Museum, then declaring "We're done with all that racism stuff, but we're keeping all this stuff that's ours."
    - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
      But does your theory include slavs too? I mean.. the word 'slave' is similar for a reason. What about the irish? Italians? What about young british Bobby or Billy, whos alcoholic single mother moved to USA, and now they both live in a trailer park in bumfuck arizona? Should he be excluded since someone somehwere did something, and that someone lived on the same island as his ancestors did?

nrb 3y ago

> meritocracy is the gold standard and no, I do not believe that we need to make up for an “unequal start to life” In labor markets, sure. But isn’t merit for a youth largely built through education? Certainly feels like full-blown meritocracy without accounting for equality of opportunity is for some a self-fulfilling prophecy and for others a catch-22. At any rate probably a recipe for supercharging wealth inequality.

mdorazio 3y ago
Here's the corollary of that: how does typical DEI actually help equality of opportunity? Put another way, do you think a black student from a wealthy family in San Jose or a poor white student from rural Alabama needs more help? Now show me a real-world DEI program that would help the white student instead of the black one.
- curbstompanazi 3y ago
  [dead]
- nrb 3y ago
  My statement was in regard to the posters overall philosophy on equity and not any particular DEI program. I would agree that most would probably fail that test, does they mean we need blanket bans on equity programs or more effective ones?
  - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
    If the programs are based on race instead of eg. financial status, access to education, etc., then yeah, banning them would help little white Bobby from a trailer park, because he currently can't get that help because of his skin color.
    - rschneid 3y ago
      I used to think this way too; until I recently noticed it was a false dichotomy! There is plenty of room to be spent on money for impoverished youngsters of any background and we should be petitioning our politicians to spend MORE OVERALL on youth, education, and nourishment programs. It doesn't have to be a zero-sum, but our politicians don't want us to realize this... American in particular needs nourishment funding for all socioecon/demographic classes.

teux 3y ago

Can you explain what is bad about DEI offices, using tangible examples? Who do they hurt?

gotoeleven 3y ago
https://stanforddaily.com/2023/04/05/judge-duncan-stanford-law-school-explained/ https://stanforddaily.com/2023/04/05/judge-duncan-stanford-l...
iinnPP 3y ago
Poor people of all races.
- teux 3y ago
  Would love some more info, maybe sources. DEI isn’t only focused on race. And even if so, if there are more statistically distributed poor people of one race getting by than another, that is a problem. https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/23/race-and-admissions-ut-austin-last-five-years/ https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/23/race-and-admissions-... > Black and Hispanics make up just 14 percent of students admitted from outside the automatic threshold, even though they make up 60 percent of Texas high school graduates. Meanwhile, white and Asian students make up 73 percent of non-automatically admitted students, while they make up 39 percent of Texas high school graduates overall.
candiodari 3y ago
DEI is about what you "are", and reduces what you do/did/can/... to stuff that was decided when you were born. In a perfect "DEI" world, your status would be decided the moment you are conceived and would be utterly unchangeable. It's fundamentally a status game. It's about "blood", what blood, skin, hair, ... you're born with. DEI has advanced in society to the point that, ironically, it's not tolerant of other viewpoints. And the ideology doesn't see this as a problem, in fact like all zero-merit ideologies (meaning they don't value individuals at all, and certainly not on personal achievement), they're actively proud of being bullies. Except this is a bullies club where entry is based on your genes. DEI as "let's make a meritocracy more meritocratic" is great. Fantastic even. And it certainly was a necessity. DEI appears to not be that, anymore. And even this is disregarding that DEI is at least partially a coverup for dumb spending cuts by government. Or that it's failing. The advancement of DEI is certainly not making the poor better off.

8note 3y ago

The highest merit is being rich, yeah? Why bother letting poor people in, you can filter to the best by charging 2M in tuition per year

megaman821 3y ago
More the half the comments here are mentioning helping the poor in a colorblind way. Also, those big headline tuition numbers are only paid by the rich which basically subsides those with financial need.

santaanawinds 3y ago

[dead]

lapcat 3y ago

> meritocracy is the gold standard Meritocracy is a dystopia that we somehow warped into its opposite, a utopia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy This seems to happen with many philosophical ideas: Christianity has become staunchly capitalist, the direct opposite of everything that Jesus taught; Communism, the dictatorship of the working class, became the dictatorship of the non-working elite class, etc.

happytoexplain 3y ago

I agree that meritocracy is the gold standard and that diversity programs usually have problems in direct proportion to how much concrete action they actually take. However, equity is obviously good, and is not mutually exclusive with meritocracy. You kind of imply agreement there, using quotes to imply that people strive for a false kind of equity, but then you say "no, I do not believe that we need to make up for an 'unequal start to life'", which is exactly the type of equity that is compatible with meritocracy. It's the key part of your post, but it doesn't really stand on its own without some kind of explanation. It's kind of like saying, "There is no such thing as an 8-foot-tall bird. And no, ostriches don't count."

g42gregory 3y ago
Why do you assume that equity is obviously good? I think it's the equality (equal opportunity) that is good, not the equity (equal achievement).

shrimp_emoji 3y ago

I hate to say it, but I agree. I internalized why affirmative action and equity are awkwardly unjust in the short-term but more just and better in the long-term, but I don't think that we, as a society, are convinced that the ends justify the means. It feels good to try to be colorblind, for example, even if critical theory would blackpill you that you can't really be colorblind and you're lying to yourself. But any alternative is socially unsustainable precisely because we resent racism. As a society, I don't think we can psychologically afford social engineering projects like affirmative action. The insecurity and resentment they breed feel really bad and are huge powder kegs for political strife. So it's probably better to not do them.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

invalidname 3y ago

How do you measure merit? Honest question. I don't care about DEI. Not an American either. Just the whole "meritocracy" argument seems like it's a bit problematic. In arts merit is really problematic but even in sciences and math. A person with the "right connections" can find himself collaborating with the best scientists and in the best labs. Whereas a person with bad connections might be unable to afford the networking even if they do get a scholarship to the best school. Even in "objective" grading. Is the grade of the student who worked all night to afford school equivalent to the one who had a private tutor and all the free time to study? To be clear: I don't have the answer for this. But I don't think anyone has. It seems to me that a lot of people use this word as a cudgel rather than use a more nuanced individual distinction. Which I agree, doesn't scale well.