Johns Hopkins’ diversity chief labels whites, males and Christians as ‘privilege

Started by marshwiggle, January 13, 2024, 10:41:23 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

ciao_yall

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 19, 2024, 10:12:08 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on January 19, 2024, 06:48:20 AM
Quote
QuoteThey may say they will work to improve women's status, in the society, the university, or the curriculum, but they can't or won't support the idea of lessening men's.

<snip>

As we in Women's Studies work to reveal male privilege and ask men to give up some of their power...

This is where I dig in my heels, and I find the attitude saturating DEI.  We've seen it on these boards.  If it were 1865 and we were in Mississippi, particularly on one of the big plantations, I could understand.  But we are not.  There are big white male pigs----and then there are the rest of us.

Don't turn awkward allies into targets, hence awkward adversaries.

More rights for one group does not mean less rights for another.

It's not pie.

No, nope, no.  Be fair.  Don't strawman.

That's not what I was saying.  You are very smart, ciao, and should know that.

And what McIntosh was saying was pretty much that: give up your "power," boys.

The same rights for everyone is what we are after.

And whamo!  This is what I was talking about.  Suddenly I am an awkward adversary, not an awkward ally.  And it is not my doing.

And again: What Kron said.

I hear what you are saying. The "same rights for everyone" means someone else no longer has the right to abuse the person who no longer lacks the right to fight that abuse.

Wahoo Redux

Quote from: ciao_yall on January 20, 2024, 08:23:32 AMI hear what you are saying. The "same rights for everyone" means someone else no longer has the right to abuse the person who no longer lacks the right to fight that abuse.

I never would have phrased it that anyone had the "right to abuse" anyone else, and this is why American history can be so abhorrent.  But okay. 

What I was thinking is that we have the cliche of a "level playing field" for everyone, a meritocracy, as quixotic as that may be, so we need not worry about diversity, equity, and inclusion because they will all be assumed.  Kind of like Star Trek only real. 
Come, fill the Cup, and in the fire of Spring
Your Winter-garment of Repentance fling:
The Bird of Time has but a little way
To flutter--and the Bird is on the Wing.

marshwiggle

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 20, 2024, 08:46:44 AMWhat I was thinking is that we have the cliche of a "level playing field" for everyone, a meritocracy, as quixotic as that may be, so we need not worry about diversity, equity, and inclusion because they will all be assumed.  Kind of like Star Trek only real.

Just because some ideal will never be fully realized doesn't make abandoning it for something more cynical a better choice. In sports, as long as there are human officials there will be questions of whether all of the calls are "fair", but those just encourage more effort to try and improve the process instead of just letting people pay the officials to get whatever outcome money can buy.

Quote from: Kron3007 on January 20, 2024, 04:41:29 AMRecently, I saw a DEI question asking if you belonged to any equity seeking groups.  I was surprised to see first generation university students on it, so DEI is not only about white privilege and can include poor white people.

Does anyone else see a problem with the concept of "equity seeking groups"? We've had countless conversations on here about students who are seeking higher grades, and feeling they have been unfairly denied them.

(And of course, groups don't "seek" anything; individuals do. Like those students seeking higher grades, lots of others with much more valid challenges will avoid making the same kind of pleas, feeling that to do so is beneath their dignity.)
It takes so little to be above average.

Stockmann

Quote from: bio-nonymous on January 19, 2024, 01:58:03 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 18, 2024, 04:58:11 PMYou probably need to concede that socioeconomic class is definitely tied to race and history in the Americas, Marshy.  It is kind of fact.



I hate to get involved in these types of arguments but it is a FACT according to the US census (Table A3 from https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-280.html) that there are more than 3.4x as many whites (26 million) than blacks (7.626 million) under the poverty level. It is true however that whites have a lower percentage (10.5%) than blacks (17.1%) of their total population under the poverty level. But you cannot negate the suffering of those 10.5% for political purposes and claim they are a privileged class with respect to socioeconomic factors. Poor is poor, and hard, no matter what your race, religion, creed, ethnicity, gender, age, or sexual identity. My belief is that in this day and age socioeconomic privilege has a greater impact on someone's daily life and future prospects than the other factors listed in the last sentence.

To me it's blindingly obvious that in the US wealth, fame and being a jock trump absolutely any other form of privilege (OJ Simpson, for instance). The identitarian Left's approach, in the US at any rate, is both unrealistic (yes, a rich black American is far more privileged than poor whites - right-wing talk about "liberal elites" and so on resonates partly because it contains a kernel of truth) and electorally counterproductive.

Wahoo Redux

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 20, 2024, 12:56:42 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 20, 2024, 08:46:44 AMWhat I was thinking is that we have the cliche of a "level playing field" for everyone, a meritocracy, as quixotic as that may be, so we need not worry about diversity, equity, and inclusion because they will all be assumed.  Kind of like Star Trek only real.

Just because some ideal will never be fully realized doesn't make abandoning it for something more cynical a better choice. In sports, as long as there are human officials there will be questions of whether all of the calls are "fair", but those just encourage more effort to try and improve the process instead of just letting people pay the officials to get whatever outcome money can buy.


Son, what in the hail are you talkin'bout?

Look up the definition of "quixotic" while you are at it.
Come, fill the Cup, and in the fire of Spring
Your Winter-garment of Repentance fling:
The Bird of Time has but a little way
To flutter--and the Bird is on the Wing.

marshwiggle

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 20, 2024, 08:52:57 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 20, 2024, 12:56:42 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 20, 2024, 08:46:44 AMWhat I was thinking is that we have the cliche of a "level playing field" for everyone, a meritocracy, as quixotic as that may be, so we need not worry about diversity, equity, and inclusion because they will all be assumed.  Kind of like Star Trek only real.

Just because some ideal will never be fully realized doesn't make abandoning it for something more cynical a better choice. In sports, as long as there are human officials there will be questions of whether all of the calls are "fair", but those just encourage more effort to try and improve the process instead of just letting people pay the officials to get whatever outcome money can buy.


Son, what in the hail are you talkin'bout?

Look up the definition of "quixotic" while you are at it.

Read the book, (admittedly in English, rather than Spanish), watched the play. What become apparent is that even though Don Quixote is delusional, he is noble in the pursuit of his goals.

DEI is based on the idea that the ideals of a society will never be perfectly realized, and so the "solution" is to impose a system with specific, intentional biases to counteract the perceived deficiencies in the system.

That's what I mean by something more cynical that the existing laws aimed at producing a system free of discrimination.

It takes so little to be above average.