"Supporters of diversity-based initiatives therefore often embrace the same kind of broad generalizations about race, sex, and other identity characteristics that civil rights laws were meant to counteract. " Exactly! Excellent article, should be read widely. Thank you!
Yes, they do it in the same way that everybody did with identity politics, is a diversionary way of segregating people in order to oppose them! And we can look at Nazi Germany, Rwanda, China in the cultural revolution, to know where it ends up. Equal human rights based on common humanity is the only way.
If logic, reason and clear thinking were enough to take the vinegar out of DEI, this superb essay would by itself be enough. Thank you FAIR for such an excellent post.
The persons running the DEI workshops that I have taken would, if given the chance, completely destroy morale. As it is, it pains me to be earnestly working far more hours I get paid for to teach students how to write research papers, while these charlatans make 6 figures to literally sow division. A healthy response to social awkwardness is deemed “unaware of the persistence of racism,” no one can utter a social blunder without fear of getting fired (Biden undoing due process further ensures this outcome). In the university context, the lowest level “scholarship” is put forth as great wisdom. All three leaders of these workshops made clear their inability to adapt along with blatant anti-white racism: “Just consider yourself part of the white group that is detrimental to society.” Again the evil idiot spewing this makes a lot more money than I do, insulting me, my race, and encouraging intolerance.
I don’t think so. Not a pro writer. As we know, few professional folks have the guts to risk their careers by going public with their opposition. So maybe it is up to those of us who are able. I wish Ricky Gervais would do a little satirical show other than straight stand up comedy.
I literally don't know what they want to achieve. You just have to look at Rwanda Chinese Cultural Revolution and Nazi. and Nazi Germany to see where identity politics go
A lot of good points and writing here, but the piece would be stronger if you addressed the opposing argument. For instance, you say:
"Why should employees trust or accept the outcome of a hiring or promotion decision if they know that one of the qualities under scrutiny is an arbitrary characteristic unjustly treated as a competency? Why should people remain committed to an organization if they realize that the trajectory of their future is partially based on surface-level characteristics they can’t change? Would you truly feel valued as a whole, multi-faceted human being if you knew or suspected that your organization assessed your qualifications based on the color of your skin or your sex?"
The answer from the DEI proponents, however, is that the undesirable situation you describe is exactly what the workplace has been for women and minorities in a white-male-dominated spaces, and DEI, they argue, is the answer to that. Thus, the question turns itself back on you --Would you truly feel valued as a whole, multi-faceted human being if you knew or suspected that your organization assessed your qualifications based on the color of your skin or your sex?"
I agree with you that the DEI bureaucracy is exacerbating identity-based division for some of the reasons you suggest, but I think you do a disservice by not addressing what the proponents of DEI are at least ostensibly *hoping* it might achieve and the problems they allege exist without the concerted effort of DEI programs. Similarly, DEI proponents would have more credibility if they acknowledged the potential hazard of *reverse discrimination* and broadened their frame to address how to avoid implicit bias affecting hiring and advancement across the board, including e.g., elite socioeconomic bias, anti-religious bias, and political-viewpoint bias. When they don't -- and don't seem to care about maligning white people, frankly, it makes them seem hypocritical and undermines their credibility. To gain credibility speaking on this issue, you should address the starting point for DEI endeavors, extend empathy and build trust that you are not oblivious to or uncaring about the arguments on the other side.
Thank you for this very clear analysis. DEI presumes the non-existence of the individual person, the individual personality, what Dr. Martin Luther King was talking about when he stated his wish for his children to be judged by the content of their characters, not the color of their skin. Ayn Rand pointed out in a 1963 essay that racism was the death of individualism. “There is only one antidote to racism: the philosophy of individualism and its politico-economic corollary, laissez-fair capitalism.” Dovetails nicely with Martin Luther King
exactly, spot on. Every person is unique and different and composed from 1000 different characteristics. Our goal should be to celebrate the uniqueness of each individual and welcome that diversity, not put people into little boxes of affinity groups. MLK had it right 60 years ago, judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin (or any other construct like gender, age, appearance, etc.)
It's a fundamental right of any private company to choose who they employ. If my hard work builds a business, I should be free to hire whoever I deem fit. That is my decision, not the government's. A wise business owner prioritizes talent and ability, regardless of any other factor. This is common sense business practice. Government interference in this process is a clear overreach.
Of course, marxists don't believe in you having your own property. They think that that's something that they can control too Government interference in this process, as often seen in increasingly controlling regimes, is a slippery slope towards an unfree society.
But this argument supports the right of the private companies to prioritize *surface level diversity* if they wish, as "common sense business practice." Right? Is anyone saying the Government imposes the DEI bureaucracies in private companies? I don't think that's happening -- is it?
Government intervention in hiring practices, such as affirmative action policies or quotas, directly contradicts the principle of allowing private businesses to hire whomever they wish. It restricts their autonomy and forces them to prioritize certain groups over others, regardless of their individual qualifications or the company's specific needs. This can be seen as an infringement on personal liberties and a denial of the freedom to shape one's business according to their own values.
In essence, such government intervention replaces the ideal of a free market, where businesses can make independent decisions based on merit and their unique requirements, with a system of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) mandates that prioritize social engineering over individual freedom and business autonomy. This can lead to resentment, inefficiency, and a lack of genuine diversity based on merit.This erosion of individual freedom and the rise of a bureaucratic, top-down approach to social engineering is It's an insanely dangerous no one should give up their freedoms quite there easily But even more fun than that is the focus on identity politics and we all know where that goes you just have to look at Rwanda the cultural revolution in China and Nazi Germany to see what a bad idea it is to play the D E I game |
I should have the right to hire employees based on my own criteria, as long as it adhere to fair employment practices and do not discriminate based on protected characteristics. Forcing a particular ideology onto individuals or businesses is a form of social engineering! And a significant loss of freedom This freedom of what is mine over what is the state's
Great article. My concern, however, is that focusing solely on job-related skills while ignoring identity fails to address the systemic barriers that diverse individuals encounter. This approach may inadvertently support existing power structures under the guise of pursuing “true meritocracy.” Furthermore, the evaluation of leadership qualities is often subjective, and identity frequently influences outcomes. For instance, in the venture capital world, only 2.3% of all-female founding teams receive funding, compared to 10% for mixed-gender teams. This disparity suggests that even when decisions are supposedly based on merit, biases can skew outcomes. Recognizing identity can help counteract these imbalances.
Therefore, I believe a more nuanced and balanced approach is necessary—one that carefully weighs the risks of reinforcing stereotypes and diluting leadership qualities against the imperative to foster a fairer and less biased society.
"Supporters of diversity-based initiatives therefore often embrace the same kind of broad generalizations about race, sex, and other identity characteristics that civil rights laws were meant to counteract. " Exactly! Excellent article, should be read widely. Thank you!
Yes, they do it in the same way that everybody did with identity politics, is a diversionary way of segregating people in order to oppose them! And we can look at Nazi Germany, Rwanda, China in the cultural revolution, to know where it ends up. Equal human rights based on common humanity is the only way.
If logic, reason and clear thinking were enough to take the vinegar out of DEI, this superb essay would by itself be enough. Thank you FAIR for such an excellent post.
DEI is truly a neo Marxist perspective that must be fought on every imaginable level
Read Mark Levin;'s American Marxism and The Democrat Party Hates America-both are excellent on this issue
The persons running the DEI workshops that I have taken would, if given the chance, completely destroy morale. As it is, it pains me to be earnestly working far more hours I get paid for to teach students how to write research papers, while these charlatans make 6 figures to literally sow division. A healthy response to social awkwardness is deemed “unaware of the persistence of racism,” no one can utter a social blunder without fear of getting fired (Biden undoing due process further ensures this outcome). In the university context, the lowest level “scholarship” is put forth as great wisdom. All three leaders of these workshops made clear their inability to adapt along with blatant anti-white racism: “Just consider yourself part of the white group that is detrimental to society.” Again the evil idiot spewing this makes a lot more money than I do, insulting me, my race, and encouraging intolerance.
Satirize it, somehow! Laugh it into the ground. I can't think of a better way. Yes, it's ghastly.
Yes! Satire is a brilliant way to criticize. Remember Jonathan Swift and “A Modest Proposal”?
Sure do. But I can't summon the talent to pull off something that good about DEI . . . maybe you can?
I don’t think so. Not a pro writer. As we know, few professional folks have the guts to risk their careers by going public with their opposition. So maybe it is up to those of us who are able. I wish Ricky Gervais would do a little satirical show other than straight stand up comedy.
Sorry for comma slices and other typos— I’m on a bus.
I literally don't know what they want to achieve. You just have to look at Rwanda Chinese Cultural Revolution and Nazi. and Nazi Germany to see where identity politics go
A lot of good points and writing here, but the piece would be stronger if you addressed the opposing argument. For instance, you say:
"Why should employees trust or accept the outcome of a hiring or promotion decision if they know that one of the qualities under scrutiny is an arbitrary characteristic unjustly treated as a competency? Why should people remain committed to an organization if they realize that the trajectory of their future is partially based on surface-level characteristics they can’t change? Would you truly feel valued as a whole, multi-faceted human being if you knew or suspected that your organization assessed your qualifications based on the color of your skin or your sex?"
The answer from the DEI proponents, however, is that the undesirable situation you describe is exactly what the workplace has been for women and minorities in a white-male-dominated spaces, and DEI, they argue, is the answer to that. Thus, the question turns itself back on you --Would you truly feel valued as a whole, multi-faceted human being if you knew or suspected that your organization assessed your qualifications based on the color of your skin or your sex?"
I agree with you that the DEI bureaucracy is exacerbating identity-based division for some of the reasons you suggest, but I think you do a disservice by not addressing what the proponents of DEI are at least ostensibly *hoping* it might achieve and the problems they allege exist without the concerted effort of DEI programs. Similarly, DEI proponents would have more credibility if they acknowledged the potential hazard of *reverse discrimination* and broadened their frame to address how to avoid implicit bias affecting hiring and advancement across the board, including e.g., elite socioeconomic bias, anti-religious bias, and political-viewpoint bias. When they don't -- and don't seem to care about maligning white people, frankly, it makes them seem hypocritical and undermines their credibility. To gain credibility speaking on this issue, you should address the starting point for DEI endeavors, extend empathy and build trust that you are not oblivious to or uncaring about the arguments on the other side.
Thank you for this very clear analysis. DEI presumes the non-existence of the individual person, the individual personality, what Dr. Martin Luther King was talking about when he stated his wish for his children to be judged by the content of their characters, not the color of their skin. Ayn Rand pointed out in a 1963 essay that racism was the death of individualism. “There is only one antidote to racism: the philosophy of individualism and its politico-economic corollary, laissez-fair capitalism.” Dovetails nicely with Martin Luther King
exactly, spot on. Every person is unique and different and composed from 1000 different characteristics. Our goal should be to celebrate the uniqueness of each individual and welcome that diversity, not put people into little boxes of affinity groups. MLK had it right 60 years ago, judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin (or any other construct like gender, age, appearance, etc.)
It's a fundamental right of any private company to choose who they employ. If my hard work builds a business, I should be free to hire whoever I deem fit. That is my decision, not the government's. A wise business owner prioritizes talent and ability, regardless of any other factor. This is common sense business practice. Government interference in this process is a clear overreach.
Of course, marxists don't believe in you having your own property. They think that that's something that they can control too Government interference in this process, as often seen in increasingly controlling regimes, is a slippery slope towards an unfree society.
But this argument supports the right of the private companies to prioritize *surface level diversity* if they wish, as "common sense business practice." Right? Is anyone saying the Government imposes the DEI bureaucracies in private companies? I don't think that's happening -- is it?
Government intervention in hiring practices, such as affirmative action policies or quotas, directly contradicts the principle of allowing private businesses to hire whomever they wish. It restricts their autonomy and forces them to prioritize certain groups over others, regardless of their individual qualifications or the company's specific needs. This can be seen as an infringement on personal liberties and a denial of the freedom to shape one's business according to their own values.
In essence, such government intervention replaces the ideal of a free market, where businesses can make independent decisions based on merit and their unique requirements, with a system of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) mandates that prioritize social engineering over individual freedom and business autonomy. This can lead to resentment, inefficiency, and a lack of genuine diversity based on merit.This erosion of individual freedom and the rise of a bureaucratic, top-down approach to social engineering is It's an insanely dangerous no one should give up their freedoms quite there easily But even more fun than that is the focus on identity politics and we all know where that goes you just have to look at Rwanda the cultural revolution in China and Nazi Germany to see what a bad idea it is to play the D E I game |
I should have the right to hire employees based on my own criteria, as long as it adhere to fair employment practices and do not discriminate based on protected characteristics. Forcing a particular ideology onto individuals or businesses is a form of social engineering! And a significant loss of freedom This freedom of what is mine over what is the state's
Great article. My concern, however, is that focusing solely on job-related skills while ignoring identity fails to address the systemic barriers that diverse individuals encounter. This approach may inadvertently support existing power structures under the guise of pursuing “true meritocracy.” Furthermore, the evaluation of leadership qualities is often subjective, and identity frequently influences outcomes. For instance, in the venture capital world, only 2.3% of all-female founding teams receive funding, compared to 10% for mixed-gender teams. This disparity suggests that even when decisions are supposedly based on merit, biases can skew outcomes. Recognizing identity can help counteract these imbalances.
Therefore, I believe a more nuanced and balanced approach is necessary—one that carefully weighs the risks of reinforcing stereotypes and diluting leadership qualities against the imperative to foster a fairer and less biased society.