Yes I agree . Equality of opportunity works well, but it doesn’t fit in a three letter acronym, and is too specific and difficult for political people with agendas to manipulate.
The origin of DEI is interesting inasmuch as it is proof of an astronomical amount of schooling combined with zero actual education. Great riff, Michael.
Abstolutely a lack of education. Especially insofar as another angle is that you can’t have diversity with pure inclusion. Diversity requires either internal or external exclusion. We discussed Punk in a different comment being a function of both and it was mentiond queer is another. It’s an intentional separation, not inclusion, that creates a different enough culture or behavior to be considered diverse.
Fantastic. I’d just add that equity is just trying to jump to the conclusion of equality. They both have the same goal and, over time, equality results in equity but ironically, equity almost never is achieved and it certainly isn’t equality. What a tangled mess!
A lot of this argument hinges on a paragraph in the first section where you state that most people have tolerance for diversity and inclusion. If that were true, maybe I’d agree with you — equality would work better. But equity exists as a value exactly because so many people would prefer to live in a less diverse and inclusive world. Just look at the popularity of the term “woke,” which is a euphemism for intolerance of diversity and inclusion. Equity exists as a more aggressive measure for countering crude and inexcusable intolerance, which is, unfortunately, extremely common.
I disagree. Nonhuman is open to pure D and I. We all draw lines around culture, behavior, etc. In my experience, the least diverse and inclusive are, ironically, those under the banner of woke that you mentioned. There's so much truth to the stereotypical memes.
25 years ago I wrote a paper titled "We are not going to tolerate intolerance" and explored the burgeoning behavior in the left, who used tolerance as a moral cudgel back then, for how intolerant of diversity of thought and inclusion of differing perspectives. It has gotten much less tolerant to diversity and inclusion since.
The most annoying thing is that their diversity is whitewashed and skin deep. It doesn't matter what color or culture you are as long as you think and talk like them. Thomas Sowell writes extensively about this as did Malcolm X.
This article shows how the DEI focus of a major company didn't want actual diversity:
Ideologically and rhetorically, I agree with you sometimes. I think it’s worth thinking through how the left throws the baby out with the bathwater by dismissing arguments that don’t sound ideologically aligned.
But I think you’re giving the right too much of the benefit of the doubt by assuming they want to see diversity in the world when we have critics of “woke” immediately dismissing nonwhite, queer, or non-Christian people outright (e.g,saying they wouldn’t be a passenger in a plane with a black woman pilot. While equity measures aren’t ideal, their purpose is to offer a plan for when this happens. And if you’re right that diversity is important (and I agree with you here too), equity is simply about putting our money where our mouth is so that we’re not just paying lip service to diversity as a value. We can make it happen, too, which will yield good outcomes (because, let’s say it again, diversity is important).
And I loved that article you wrote about the fish — I praised it in the comments. I appreciate how you approach these topics in good faith.
Good points. I don't disagree with those goals. I'd add two additional thoughts.
1. We aren't coded to accept our diversity and inclusion. There is always an us and them.
2. The ironic outcome of pure diversity and inclusion is actually the elimination of diversity and inclusion. Out another way, without an us and them you wouldn't have diversity and you wouldn't need inclusion.
Part of what makes diversity is actually exclusion either internally or externally. Punk music tried to achieve both and, by rejecting inclusivity and by being excluded, created a diverse layer in society. (And now you've got me thinking of a new topic...) 🤓
I agree with you, but I think equality is just as broad a term as equity. Equality of what? Outcomes?
Great question. Short hand I'd say equality of opportunity. Equity is equality of outcomes.
Equality starts everyone the same.
It's a messy topic but as long as it's not equity, I'm ok.
Yes I agree . Equality of opportunity works well, but it doesn’t fit in a three letter acronym, and is too specific and difficult for political people with agendas to manipulate.
Haha. Right?
That LinkedIn post legitimately made me laugh out loud and this post, like all of your posts, legitimately made me better.
It was sooooo bad. I've just taken to calling people out for their logical fallacies.
You’re very good and entertaining at it
The origin of DEI is interesting inasmuch as it is proof of an astronomical amount of schooling combined with zero actual education. Great riff, Michael.
Abstolutely a lack of education. Especially insofar as another angle is that you can’t have diversity with pure inclusion. Diversity requires either internal or external exclusion. We discussed Punk in a different comment being a function of both and it was mentiond queer is another. It’s an intentional separation, not inclusion, that creates a different enough culture or behavior to be considered diverse.
Fantastic. I’d just add that equity is just trying to jump to the conclusion of equality. They both have the same goal and, over time, equality results in equity but ironically, equity almost never is achieved and it certainly isn’t equality. What a tangled mess!
That’s funny, I’m having this same conversation with another friend. That’s another topic to untangle for sure.
A lot of this argument hinges on a paragraph in the first section where you state that most people have tolerance for diversity and inclusion. If that were true, maybe I’d agree with you — equality would work better. But equity exists as a value exactly because so many people would prefer to live in a less diverse and inclusive world. Just look at the popularity of the term “woke,” which is a euphemism for intolerance of diversity and inclusion. Equity exists as a more aggressive measure for countering crude and inexcusable intolerance, which is, unfortunately, extremely common.
I disagree. Nonhuman is open to pure D and I. We all draw lines around culture, behavior, etc. In my experience, the least diverse and inclusive are, ironically, those under the banner of woke that you mentioned. There's so much truth to the stereotypical memes.
25 years ago I wrote a paper titled "We are not going to tolerate intolerance" and explored the burgeoning behavior in the left, who used tolerance as a moral cudgel back then, for how intolerant of diversity of thought and inclusion of differing perspectives. It has gotten much less tolerant to diversity and inclusion since.
The most annoying thing is that their diversity is whitewashed and skin deep. It doesn't matter what color or culture you are as long as you think and talk like them. Thomas Sowell writes extensively about this as did Malcolm X.
This article shows how the DEI focus of a major company didn't want actual diversity:
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/are-you-asking-a-fish-to-climb-a
Ideologically and rhetorically, I agree with you sometimes. I think it’s worth thinking through how the left throws the baby out with the bathwater by dismissing arguments that don’t sound ideologically aligned.
But I think you’re giving the right too much of the benefit of the doubt by assuming they want to see diversity in the world when we have critics of “woke” immediately dismissing nonwhite, queer, or non-Christian people outright (e.g,saying they wouldn’t be a passenger in a plane with a black woman pilot. While equity measures aren’t ideal, their purpose is to offer a plan for when this happens. And if you’re right that diversity is important (and I agree with you here too), equity is simply about putting our money where our mouth is so that we’re not just paying lip service to diversity as a value. We can make it happen, too, which will yield good outcomes (because, let’s say it again, diversity is important).
And I loved that article you wrote about the fish — I praised it in the comments. I appreciate how you approach these topics in good faith.
Good points. I don't disagree with those goals. I'd add two additional thoughts.
1. We aren't coded to accept our diversity and inclusion. There is always an us and them.
2. The ironic outcome of pure diversity and inclusion is actually the elimination of diversity and inclusion. Out another way, without an us and them you wouldn't have diversity and you wouldn't need inclusion.
Part of what makes diversity is actually exclusion either internally or externally. Punk music tried to achieve both and, by rejecting inclusivity and by being excluded, created a diverse layer in society. (And now you've got me thinking of a new topic...) 🤓
Love that — punk as a kind of artificially created diversity. The term “queer” functions that way too.
Happy to be a thought partner if you start working on a piece on this topic!
I often use the term Woke as a euphemism and find it works well to convey my meaning in polite society. Saying Batshit Crazy would be offensive.
I see that turd floating at work all the time while people desperatly try to ignore it. It's almost comical.
It really is comical. Especially when it’s not allowed to be stated. Or when it is stated, it sounds so absurd people balk at their own words.