I just posted an article that you dismissed as "pure ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊". I honestly don't know why I bother - you're so closed-minded to anything that contradicts your chosen narrative, nothing I do or say will make the slightest bit of difference.
You posted an opinion piece that did nothing to demonstrate that DEI doesn't engage in racial discrimination. It's an attack on the motives of some specific people who oppose DEI, but it actually says nothing about the merits of DEI itself or the criticisms of it.
Irony meter off the scale.
And still nothing to address the fact that DEI engages in racial discrimination. Not even an attempt.
That's because I deny your premise of defining what DEI does as "discrimination" rather than "inclusion". I've explained this before.
When a public university has a program that black students can participate in and white students cannot participate in, that's racial discrimination. Calling it inclusion doesn't make it not racial discrimination. It's still racial discrimination.
And yet when it comes to female bathrooms, that's apparently not discrimination because reasons.
Of course it's discrimination. But it's justifiable discrimination, because the sexes aren't the same in certain key aspects. Race and sex aren't equivalent. There's a whole other thread that goes into why sex segregation in bathrooms is acceptable, I'm not going to get into it any more here.
Now you're arguing that racial discrimination is justifiable. Well, that's a step forward in your honesty at least, but that's still what the defense of DEI must come down to. You cannot defend DEI without arguing that racial discrimination can be justified, because DEI is racially discriminatory.
unsafescience.substack.com
That article is complete ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. An opinion piece that cherry picks sources, supported by AI images and memes.Here, arth, is a competing explanation for Trump's war on DEI (at least in academia). Unlike the one you posted, this one actually makes sense and is backed up with over 80 references, many to peer reviewed works and scholarly books.
We Tried to Warn You
Preliminary List of Articles that Attempted to Warn Academics and Other Scientists that their Politicization of Scholarship, Teaching, Funding, Hiring and Promotions Was a Slow-Moving Train Wreck
By what method are you chosing which Whites are good and which Whites are bad?
"But that's different". Totally predictable response. It isn't different, but you're right that this is not the place for that argument.
If the result is to exclude people because of their skin hue, then that's quite the opposite of inclusion.
Thank you for demonstrating your reasoning so clearly.
Sure. But this IS the place to discuss whether racial discrimination is justifiable. You have yet to put forth such an argument.
That kind of depends on what you think the purpose of the article is. That article does not, in and of itself, speak to the merits of DEI. That much is true, and so you could indeed dismiss it as an argument against the merits of DEI. What that article does provide is clear evidence that the political consequences of DEI, namely the backlash against it, were both predictable and predicted. It's a very good argument (with evidence) to show that the current backlash against academia is a direct consequence of its embrace of DEI. So it does serve as a very effective argument against DEI if you are interested in avoiding that political backlash. Which, maybe you aren't. You don't have to be.
If it were that, then it would be. It isn't. This is just the racist "reverse discrimination" idiocy all over again. This time it didn't even put on a fancy hat.
Just imitating yours, mate, just imitating yours.
That's because that's not the argument I'm making. The argument I'm making is that inclusion is justifiable. You know, making sure that everybody gets a chance at the pie. Racists think that this means that white people get shorted by black people being included. Sexists think that this means that men get shorted by women being included. Transphobes think that this means that cis women get shorted by trans women being included. This is the argument that the Yearslong Campaign has so successfully hammered us over the head with in the service of racism, sexism and transphobia, and it's completely backwards. Completely!
