You mean the putative undergraduate are finally recognising racism,seeing past the layers of apologise.
Not everything problematic is necessarily racism. People are fallible and often grasp onto easy answers, rather than ones that actually are based in reality. Fears of overcompensation and injustices related to that aren't baseless. Also, just about no one actually likes being falsely accused of wrongdoing or having to pay for wrongdoings even when such are actual wrongdoings that they committed, much less when the wrongdoings were done by others.
The DEI trainings that I've had seem to be rather different than the portrayal made by said posters, too. Doesn't mean that problematic trainings don't exist and given human nature, it would be more surprising if they didn't, but it's not a factor that leads me to take the negative portrayals more seriously.
That's a legitimate limitation of the study, although how do you set up a control to a full-blown DEI training course; are you going to make the other students sit through hours of discussion of corn production? I also puzzled as you did about some of the results--the number of microaggressions was particularly a head-scratcher. However I think I can explain this question of yours from an earlier post:
Even if the question implies that the admissions officer is biased, that same information was given to both the DEI group and the control group. The result shows that exposure to DEI materials increases the amount by which respondents judge that that bias influenced the admission decision.
Good thing they had a control group.
Therefore, the control group controlled for the question effect, negating your complaint about it.
Or why does this training exist at all? What value does it provide? How many folks like their work day interrupted for this tripe?
Oh, pretty much all of the ones who have experienced stigma and discrimination in the workplace because of who they are.
No one should face stigma or discrimination due to their race. But you don't need DEI programs robbing folks of their time to enforce that. It's just grift.
Who said anything about enforcing? This is about educating.
That is precisely the question that the Rutgers study addressed.
Or, rather, indoctrinating.
Precisely, but don't let the democrats know of this easy fix.
When does it stop being education and start being indoctrination? You're an academic, you should be able to answer that.
Of course that's what they told you. That's the dogma.
That one's easy. Education aims at instilling productive mastery of a body of knowledge. Indoctrination aims at instilling acceptance of dogma and belief without question.
When you are not allowed to openly critically evaluate or express disagreement with it without fear of punitive consequences.
Is that picture even real?No one should face stigma or discrimination due to their race. But you don't need DEI programs robbing folks of their time to enforce that. It's just grift.
Why do people need educating? Just make a non-discrimnation policy. Why waste employees' time on useless seminars to enrich race hucksters? And, in any case, unconscious bias, which so much of this garbage is premised, famously fails to replicate. It's just a religion of hate.
After a quick google of "Ashleighthelion," I'd say very likely so. Trying to claim that that's DEI, though, isn't so easily shown to be accurate.
Because otherwise they might not think the policy applies to them.
Now why might black people in America think that, I wonder?
Because they've been indoctrinated into the cult of Critical Race Theory.
That is a position that seems far less defensible than even "All White People are Racist." After all, that would at be least tenuously defensible under the very stretched banner of "All People are Racist to some extent." There's something to be said about the normality of overgeneralization and hyperbole, either way, especially when there's significant actual underlying cause.
Can you fix that quote please?
It's been a few months. Do you have a definitive answer yet?
I hope you at least realize that your attempted argument invokes a bunch of fallacies? It may work for those who are solely interested in feeding their desired narrative and have no concern for the quality of what they use to do so, but trying to use this on a skeptics forum just invites disdain and ridicule, at least from those who aren't similarly more concerned with feeding their narrative and also aren't employing quality standards.Because the racists pushing DEI want people to hate each other.
Not yet. It's in the PI's hands at the moment.
Ditto. How is showing how race relations have worsened with the rise of DEI a fallacy? It's probably inconvenient for a preferred political narrative, but not a fallacy.
