This is the paradox of tolerance; you cannot be tolerant of the intolerant if you hope to foster a tolerant society. I’m merely arguing that it’s entirely possi

This is the paradox of tolerance; you cannot be tolerant of the intolerant if you hope to foster a tolerant society. I’m merely arguing that it’s entirely possible to have a diverse thought community that all value diversity. There’s people who believe communism sucks, and there’s communists. There’s people who believe unions good, and people with bad experiences with unions. Someone who is a veteran will by necessity have different opinions (based on lived experience) than someone who had never lifted a gun, or someone who is a refugee of war. It’s inevitable that such a group of people will not all have the same opinion on things. If the demand is to act a certain way, it’s only that the demand is to accept others who are different in a way that doesn’t actually harm anyone and foster an environment where no one person is unreasonably limited based on factors like being black or being a parent through thoughtless setup of the working environment. The diversity of thought thing is always strange to me because it implies the only diversity of thought that matters is the thought to discriminate against others or the thought to put one’s head in the sand and ignore implicit discriminatory factors. Notice you totally ignored that the professor could’ve just written about accessibility, but the professor implicitly apparently does not consider accessible labs to be merit-based or something, because he argues the only solution is to sue since DEI is so against his meritocracy position.