From the New York Post (https://nypost.com/2024/01/11/news/johns-hopkins-hospitals-dei-chief-labels-whites-males-and-christians-privileged-in-letter-to-staff/):
QuoteA diversity chief at Johns Hopkins Medicine sent a "monthly diversity digest" email to staff with a letter that declared all white people, Christians and men are "privileged."
Dr. Sherita Hill Golden, chief diversity officer for the hospital system, also included "heterosexuals" and English speakers in the "privileged" category in her missive to all staff.
Under a section titled "Diversity is the word of the Month," Golden defined privilege as "a set of unearned benefits given to people who are in a specific social group" that operates on "personal, interpersonal, cultural and institutional levels."
She provided a list of privileged social groups, which included white people, able-bodied people, heterosexuals, cisgender people, males, Christians, middle- or owning-class people, middle-aged people and English-speaking people.
and then
QuoteGolden retracted her definition of privilege and issued an apology to staff Thursday morning after the backlash.
"The newsletter included a definition of the word privilege which, upon reflection, I deeply regret," she wrote in a memo, obtained by the Daily Mail. "The intent of the newsletter is to inform and support an inclusive community at Hopkins, but the language of this definition clearly did not meet that goal.
"In fact, because it was overly simplistic and poorly worded, it had the opposite effect," she continued. "I retract and disavow the definition I shared and I am sorry."
Those are indeed all characteristics with respect to which one may enjoy some privilege.
I fail to see why this merits being a news story, though I guess it's a Post publication. If anything, the story here is that JHU caved to bullying and censorship.
What's going on here, as in all of Critical Theory, is to change the meanings of words so as to elicit envy. For old-time Marxists it was "exploitation". To new-time Marxists, it's "privilege". What is observed is differences in average outcomes of various groups. Attributing those differences to exploitation or privilege begs the question as to their causes, but the envy elicited is meant to cause political action.
Thus, these are word games, played with a political purpose.
"When words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom." [Confucius]
I think some small tweaks in language could go a long way. Instead of talking about a large group of people as being "privileged", talk about small things that could give you a small advantage or disadvantage, and then step up to bigger things that could give bigger advantages or disadvantages. For instance, if as a child your parents got along and stayed together, it probably gives you an advantage. If you are born to a certain household income, also an advantage. Broadly speaking, being born white in America, even if poor, probably gives you some advantages, even if they seem small (not being met with as much suspicion, stereotyping, etc.). Obviously, not having certain income would lead to clear disadvantages.
People resent words like "privilege" because to them, it tends to negate, say, the hard work and other struggles of their ancestors, their own personal struggles, and so forth.
Quote from: Ruralguy on January 13, 2024, 12:40:46 PMPeople resent words like "privilege" because to them, it tends to negate, say, the hard work and other struggles of their ancestors, their own personal struggles, and so forth.
It's ironic that the DEI mob who are indignant about certain people in the past not getting the recognition they deserved just because of the group(s) they were identified with now see the "solution" is to use terms like "privilege" to imply that people from
other groups aren't deserving of recognition just because of the group(s)
they are identified with.
The white, English speaking male is the new Jew.
Oh, you guys. Fulfilling all the stereotypes.
Quote from: Hegemony on January 14, 2024, 02:30:06 PMOh, you guys. Fulfilling all the stereotypes.
So what do you think Golden meant by this?
Quote"The newsletter included a definition of the word privilege which, upon reflection, I deeply regret," she wrote in a memo, obtained by the Daily Mail. "The intent of the newsletter is to inform and support an inclusive community at Hopkins, but the language of this definition clearly did not meet that goal.
"In fact, because it was overly simplistic and poorly worded, it had the opposite effect," she continued. "I retract and disavow the definition I shared and I am sorry."
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 14, 2024, 02:50:39 PMQuote from: Hegemony on January 14, 2024, 02:30:06 PMOh, you guys. Fulfilling all the stereotypes.
So what do you think Golden meant by this?
Quote"The newsletter included a definition of the word privilege which, upon reflection, I deeply regret," she wrote in a memo, obtained by the Daily Mail. "The intent of the newsletter is to inform and support an inclusive community at Hopkins, but the language of this definition clearly did not meet that goal.
"In fact, because it was overly simplistic and poorly worded, it had the opposite effect," she continued. "I retract and disavow the definition I shared and I am sorry."
It was not in fact overly simplistic and poorly worded. It was standard DEI boilerplate.
And it substituted the race war for the class war. Nothing new under the sun.
Quote from: Ruralguy on January 13, 2024, 12:40:46 PMI think some small tweaks in language could go a long way. Instead of talking about a large group of people as being "privileged", talk about small things that could give you a small advantage or disadvantage, and then step up to bigger things that could give bigger advantages or disadvantages. For instance, if as a child your parents got along and stayed together, it probably gives you an advantage. If you are born to a certain household income, also an advantage. Broadly speaking, being born white in America, even if poor, probably gives you some advantages, even if they seem small (not being met with as much suspicion, stereotyping, etc.). Obviously, not having certain income would lead to clear disadvantages.
People resent words like "privilege" because to them, it tends to negate, say, the hard work and other struggles of their ancestors, their own personal struggles, and so forth.
Yes. These are real issues, but common sense would suggest that the sort of crassly unsubtle and offensive wording we see in this case might prove counter-productive to those trying to raise them.
One supposes that the average DEI officer would be in favor of bans on civilian purchase of assault rifles. But this one must have gotten that AR-15 she just perforated both her own feet with somewhere.
Quote from: dismalist on January 14, 2024, 02:54:37 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on January 14, 2024, 02:50:39 PMQuote from: Hegemony on January 14, 2024, 02:30:06 PMOh, you guys. Fulfilling all the stereotypes.
So what do you think Golden meant by this?
Quote"The newsletter included a definition of the word privilege which, upon reflection, I deeply regret," she wrote in a memo, obtained by the Daily Mail. "The intent of the newsletter is to inform and support an inclusive community at Hopkins, but the language of this definition clearly did not meet that goal.
"In fact, because it was overly simplistic and poorly worded, it had the opposite effect," she continued. "I retract and disavow the definition I shared and I am sorry."
It was not in fact overly simplistic and poorly worded. It was standard DEI boilerplate.
And it substituted the race war for the class war. Nothing new under the sun.
What I'm curious about is how people who are very pro-DEI view Golden's two statements together. Was her initial definition "overly simplistic and poorly worded", as in her words? In that case, how
should it have been worded? Or, was her apology insincere but necessary in order to keep her job?
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 15, 2024, 01:11:56 PMWhat I'm curious about is how people who are very pro-DEI view Golden's two statements together. Was her initial definition "overly simplistic and poorly worded", as in her words? In that case, how should it have been worded? Or, was her apology insincere but necessary in order to keep her job?
I am no expert in this sphere and I have no idea how to resolve inequity in society except for the slow walk of trees that always seems to take one step back for every three steps, but I expect it is time to retire the term "privileged" because it has accumulated too much bad rhetorical weight by now.
And DEI programs seem to be back-firing and causing as many problems as they solve. We need to try something different. This is just an impression based on headlines, and someone with better facts might disabuse me of this.
But it is also not as simple as this:
QuoteIt's ironic that the DEI mob who are indignant about certain people in the past not getting the recognition they deserved just because of the group(s) they were identified with now see the "solution" is to use terms like "privilege" to imply that people from other groups aren't deserving of recognition just because of the group(s) they are identified with.
"White privilege" is a thing. It is a matter of history and the current effects of the past.
The big thing I think is that we need to stop attacking the people who did not cause this mess. The people Golden put in her sights were, for the most part, not born or in power yet. No wonder they fire back.
The identitarian Left in the US is so adept at creating a backlash against itself (this, what happened at Harvard, etc) that mere incompetence isn't really a credible explanation anymore. I think it's more of a "reign over the ashes" situation - in practice the identitarian Left would rather alienate all sorts of plausible allies (working class whites, Hispanics, Asians, black immigrants...) than be led to victory by moderates. Kind of like how Putin, in the name of Russian greatness, is driving Russia into the ground, but that's irrelevant as long as he's in the Kremlin. Trump today being well on track to win the nomination and possibly the WH certainly puts this sort of news in context.
This is simply an example of things going to far and that the best solution (and what most people support) is usually somewhere closer to the middle.
I for one support the DEI intentions, but feel that it has simply gone too far and a lot of it is just window dressing anyway. I suspect I am not unusual in this. Most people support equity in the work place, but what we are seeing from the hardcore DEI people isn't really accomplishing this effectively and is introducing new problems.
For me, I now find myself writing extensive DEI sections for every grant proposal. Most of this is just fluff and has absolutely no substance or impact. There are very real issues that need to be addressed, but I feel there are better ways to go about it.
Are the benefits worth the backlash we see?
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 16, 2024, 04:58:09 AMThis is simply an example of things going to far and that the best solution (and what most people support) is usually somewhere closer to the middle.
I for one support the DEI intentions, but feel that it has simply gone too far and a lot of it is just window dressing anyway. I suspect I am not unusual in this. Most people support equity in the work place, but what we are seeing from the hardcore DEI people isn't really accomplishing this effectively and is introducing new problems.
For me, I now find myself writing extensive DEI sections for every grant proposal. Most of this is just fluff and has absolutely no substance or impact. There are very real issues that need to be addressed, but I feel there are better ways to go about it.
Are the benefits worth the backlash we see?
My concern is that the backlash is not coming from "Hey, are we really accomplishing anything or is this just fluff?"
It's coming from "White Heterosexual Christian Males are suffering reverse discrimination and made to feel guilty and oppressed! Woke!"
Quote from: ciao_yall on January 16, 2024, 06:24:54 AMMy concern is that the backlash is not coming from "Hey, are we really accomplishing anything or is this just fluff?"
It's coming from "White Heterosexual Christian Males are suffering reverse discrimination and made to feel guilty and oppressed! Woke!"
For anyone not familiar with the legend of William Tell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tell), it's instructive:
QuoteIt is Tschudi's version that became influential in early modern Switzerland and entered public consciousness as the "William Tell" legend. According to Tschudi's account, William Tell was known as a strong man and an expert shot with the crossbow. In his time, the House of Habsburg emperors of Austria were seeking to dominate Uri, and Tell became one of the conspirators of Werner Stauffacher who vowed to resist Habsburg rule. Albrecht Gessler was the newly appointed Austrian Vogt of Altdorf, Switzerland. He raised a pole under the village lindentree, hung his hat on top of it, and demanded that all the townsfolk bow before it.
It's the "bowing before the
hat" of DEI that's what upsets most people. Actually trying to recognize individuals for their accomplishments and abilities, rather than identity characteristics, is not a big problem for most people, including "White Heterosexual Christian Males".
Well, what did Golden hope to accomplish with this?
QuoteUnder a section titled "Diversity is the word of the Month," Golden defined privilege as "a set of unearned benefits given to people who are in a specific social group" that operates on "personal, interpersonal, cultural and institutional levels."
What is the hoped-for outcome here? How would this 'definition' help anyone or resolve anything?
I think both Stockman and Marshy go too far, and dismalist's comment is right out the window, but they've all pointed out a dynamic that some good folks on the left are stubbornly refusing to see.
That, and the fact that if we look in the past we will simply see a racist, sexist, xenophobic, and violent culture. We just will. Do we need to constantly keep revisiting it? I keep hearing about a "reckoning" with these forces from the past, and I never know what that means. Responsible, mature, educated people acknowledge the evils in American history and the need to do something about it. The rest are actually ignorant or part and parcel of the Trump cult which stubbornly refuses to acknowledge facts, past and present.
But what are we supposed to do? Insult each other to make the world a better place?
Civil Rights were born on the premises of protest and taking-it-to-the-man, but these topos have become simply self-flagellation at this point and are backfiring. It is time for something new.
Quote from: ciao_yall on January 16, 2024, 06:24:54 AMQuote from: Kron3007 on January 16, 2024, 04:58:09 AMThis is simply an example of things going to far and that the best solution (and what most people support) is usually somewhere closer to the middle.
I for one support the DEI intentions, but feel that it has simply gone too far and a lot of it is just window dressing anyway. I suspect I am not unusual in this. Most people support equity in the work place, but what we are seeing from the hardcore DEI people isn't really accomplishing this effectively and is introducing new problems.
For me, I now find myself writing extensive DEI sections for every grant proposal. Most of this is just fluff and has absolutely no substance or impact. There are very real issues that need to be addressed, but I feel there are better ways to go about it.
Are the benefits worth the backlash we see?
My concern is that the backlash is not coming from "Hey, are we really accomplishing anything or is this just fluff?"
It's coming from "White Heterosexual Christian Males are suffering reverse discrimination and made to feel guilty and oppressed! Woke!"
Sure, but if the approach is not having a tangible impact and also feeding the trolls it just dosnt make sense and we should re-evaluate it. We should be strategically implementing policies that have impact while minimizing the divisiveness.
A good example is that one of the main barriers to higher education is financial, regardless of background, but no one seems to be proposing increased financial support for grad students to offset this. Where I am, housing has become prohibitively expensive for any grad student that is not coming with support. Addressing this, would directly increase equity and disproportionately benefit marginalized groups without the need for identity politics.
Having m,e write essays about how accepting my lab and I are does nothing to address this much more real contributor. I feel like they are making me put window dressing all over the lab to appear like I am doing something while the reality is that this is not really addressing the underlying issues.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 16, 2024, 07:43:28 AMWell, what did Golden hope to accomplish with this?
QuoteUnder a section titled "Diversity is the word of the Month," Golden defined privilege as "a set of unearned benefits given to people who are in a specific social group" that operates on "personal, interpersonal, cultural and institutional levels."
What is the hoped-for outcome here? How would this 'definition' help anyone or resolve anything?
Nobody denies "privilege" exists. some well-documented ones are
- "pretty" privilege; attractive people get paid more, etc.
- "tall" privilege; taller people (especially men) get paid more, etc.
- "native speaker" privilege; people who speak without a "foreign" accent are more easily accepted
We could go on
forever. But
so what?
Do we make tall people go on their knees? Do we forbid attractive people from wearing makeup or combing their hair? Do we make native speakers talk with marbles in their mouths like Demosthenes to remove their advantage?
Let me further illustrate with a sadly well-known situation.
There are many cases of people arriving at a hospital ER, but getting ignored or misdiagnosed. It disproportionately happens with Indigenous people, poor people, people from ethnic minorities, etc.
THIS IS VERY BAD! (Just in case that wasn't obvious.) However, the solution is not to ignore
everyone, or be careless in diagnosing
everyone; it is to try to
develop objective procedures and processes that are followed to reduce the effect of bias.
If that was what DEI was about, it would get much less pushback. But since DEI is often aimed at
highlighting division based on identity, rather than
reducing it, the problem isn't going to disappear anytime soon.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 16, 2024, 09:31:26 AMNobody denies "privilege" exists. some well-documented ones are
- "pretty" privilege; attractive people get paid more, etc.
- "tall" privilege; taller people (especially men) get paid more, etc.
- "native speaker" privilege; people who speak without a "foreign" accent are more easily accepted
We could go on forever. But so what?
Yeah...pretty sure you're not getting it, Marshy.
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 16, 2024, 08:54:31 AMQuote from: ciao_yall on January 16, 2024, 06:24:54 AMQuote from: Kron3007 on January 16, 2024, 04:58:09 AMThis is simply an example of things going to far and that the best solution (and what most people support) is usually somewhere closer to the middle.
I for one support the DEI intentions, but feel that it has simply gone too far and a lot of it is just window dressing anyway. I suspect I am not unusual in this. Most people support equity in the work place, but what we are seeing from the hardcore DEI people isn't really accomplishing this effectively and is introducing new problems.
For me, I now find myself writing extensive DEI sections for every grant proposal. Most of this is just fluff and has absolutely no substance or impact. There are very real issues that need to be addressed, but I feel there are better ways to go about it.
Are the benefits worth the backlash we see?
My concern is that the backlash is not coming from "Hey, are we really accomplishing anything or is this just fluff?"
It's coming from "White Heterosexual Christian Males are suffering reverse discrimination and made to feel guilty and oppressed! Woke!"
Sure, but if the approach is not having a tangible impact and also feeding the trolls it just dosnt make sense and we should re-evaluate it. We should be strategically implementing policies that have impact while minimizing the divisiveness.
A good example is that one of the main barriers to higher education is financial, regardless of background, but no one seems to be proposing increased financial support for grad students to offset this. Where I am, housing has become prohibitively expensive for any grad student that is not coming with support. Addressing this, would directly increase equity and disproportionately benefit marginalized groups without the need for identity politics.
Having m,e write essays about how accepting my lab and I are does nothing to address this much more real contributor. I feel like they are making me put window dressing all over the lab to appear like I am doing something while the reality is that this is not really addressing the underlying issues.
Agreed. I manage a grant right now and of course it has all sorts of lofty goals, but we can't spend the funds on anything that is actually needed by the students or the college to support the students.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 16, 2024, 01:41:38 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on January 16, 2024, 09:31:26 AMNobody denies "privilege" exists. some well-documented ones are
- "pretty" privilege; attractive people get paid more, etc.
- "tall" privilege; taller people (especially men) get paid more, etc.
- "native speaker" privilege; people who speak without a "foreign" accent are more easily accepted
We could go on forever. But so what?
Yeah...pretty sure you're not getting it, Marshy.
Please elaborate.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 17, 2024, 06:06:35 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on January 16, 2024, 01:41:38 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on January 16, 2024, 09:31:26 AMNobody denies "privilege" exists. some well-documented ones are
- "pretty" privilege; attractive people get paid more, etc.
- "tall" privilege; taller people (especially men) get paid more, etc.
- "native speaker" privilege; people who speak without a "foreign" accent are more easily accepted
We could go on forever. But so what?
Yeah...pretty sure you're not getting it, Marshy.
Please elaborate.
Yeah buddy, I expected you to respond that way, and I will admit that I am not inclined to fill in the blanks for you, but anyway...
The problem is not with human beings' basic tendencies to have prejudices and favoritisms, but with a very specific historical set of problems with North American racism, sexism, and homophobia and the advantages this history gives to, essentially, white men.
The problem is how do we deal with this history, and no one seems to have any good ideas anymore.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 17, 2024, 12:53:37 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on January 17, 2024, 06:06:35 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on January 16, 2024, 01:41:38 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on January 16, 2024, 09:31:26 AMNobody denies "privilege" exists. some well-documented ones are
- "pretty" privilege; attractive people get paid more, etc.
- "tall" privilege; taller people (especially men) get paid more, etc.
- "native speaker" privilege; people who speak without a "foreign" accent are more easily accepted
We could go on forever. But so what?
Yeah...pretty sure you're not getting it, Marshy.
Please elaborate.
Yeah buddy, I expected you to respond that way, and I will admit that I am not inclined to fill in the blanks for you, but anyway...
The problem is not with human beings' basic tendencies to have prejudices and favoritisms, but with a very specific historical set of problems with North American racism, sexism, and homophobia and the advantages this history gives to, essentially, white men.
Thanks for the clarification. One of the really annoying things about this is that there's a not-quite-spelled-out-but-implied idea that having "privilege" makes a person somewhat less virtuous than someone lacking "privilege". (And of course, specifically stating that "privilege" is not something that a person had any part in acquiring, so they aren't "responsible" for it.) So it's like original sin, but with no chance of redemption.
The glaring irony is that discrimination on the basis of "privilege" is no more justified than discrimination on any other factor that people have no control over, but many of the people who rail about the latter gleefully engage in the former.
QuoteThe problem is how do we deal with this history, and no one seems to have any good ideas anymore.
We don't
"deal with" history; by definition, it is immutable. What we
can do, if we choose, is try to
learn from history. That means choosing to
do things differently. But that's not enough for the people who just want to
re-write history to make it something they find more palatable.
Well, at the risk of being shouted down, Golden's definition is correct. Peggy McIntosh (one of the most-cited scholars on this issue) defines white privilege as an "invisible package of unearned assets" that white people can count upon without having to think about it. She says nothing about recognition or virtue. Please read McIntosh's "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" and the brilliant critique by Gina Crosley-Corcoran, "Explaining White Privilege to a Broke White Person."
We're scholars. Do the homework.
Quote from: artalot on January 17, 2024, 02:02:58 PMWell, at the risk of being shouted down, Golden's definition is correct. Peggy McIntosh (one of the most-cited scholars on this issue) defines white privilege as an "invisible package of unearned assets" that white people can count upon without having to think about it.
...
We're scholars. Do the homework.
White privilege as an
Quote"invisible package of unearned assets"
Invisible! I love it.
Looks like white, Christian males, who have accumulated some assets, are rich in phlogiston, which we can't see.
Just words.
Your condescension is a bad look, especially since you clearly didn't read the essay. Even a student would have read it. It's only three pages long.
What's wanted are arguments, not citations.
Quote from: artalot on January 17, 2024, 02:02:58 PMWell, at the risk of being shouted down, Golden's definition is correct.
So, did she lie when she said this?
Quote"The newsletter included a definition of the word privilege which, upon reflection, I deeply regret," she wrote in a memo, obtained by the Daily Mail. "The intent of the newsletter is to inform and support an inclusive community at Hopkins, but the language of this definition clearly did not meet that goal.
"In fact, because it was overly simplistic and poorly worded, it had the opposite effect," she continued. "I retract and disavow the definition I shared and I am sorry."
The major issue I see is that DEI is mostly fluff and these discussions just devolve into arguments over the wording. You will never convince Marshy and their ilk that white privilege is the problem or a suitable term. However, almost all of them would support a system that provides equal access to opportunity for all, so the whole argument is mostly meaningless. It is quite possible to address the problem without agreeing on the terminology, and force feeding everyone these concepts is largely counterproductive.
For the bulk of us who reside somewhere in the middle, it is hard to take DEI proponents seriously when there are so many easily remedied problems that are left unaddressed.
I am in Canada, so my examples are from here, but we had a truth and reconciliation commission do a report in which they produced 94 calls to action. I believe the report was released in 2015. Since then, I think they have addressed 13. This is from a government that claims to put DEI front and centre and launched the commission in the first place.
In Canada, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, we still have hundreds of first nation communities without safe drinking water. First nation schools in Ontario receive less funding per student (funded federally) compared to non-indigenous schools (funded provincially).
These are examples of problems that are glaringly problematic and have fairly easy solutions. There are plenty more. Instead of actually taking action, we just do a bunch of meaningless work and establish new administrative positions and offices to give the impression that we are doing something. I now put a lot of time and effort into dressing my windows despite the fact that it has almost no impact and has only made me bitter and skeptical about the whole thing.
...
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 18, 2024, 07:14:40 AMI am in Canada, so my examples are from here, but we had a truth and reconciliation commission do a report in which they produced 94 calls to action. I believe the report was released in 2015. Since then, I think they have addressed 13. This is from a government that claims to put DEI front and centre and launched the commission in the first place.
In Canada, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, we still have hundreds of first nation communities without safe drinking water. First nation schools in Ontario receive less funding per student (funded federally) compared to non-indigenous schools (funded provincially).
These are examples of problems that are glaringly problematic and have fairly easy solutions. There are plenty more. Instead of actually taking action, we just do a bunch of meaningless work and establish new administrative positions and offices to give the impression that we are doing something. I now put a lot of time and effort into dressing my windows despite the fact that it has almost no impact and has only made me bitter and skeptical about the whole thing.
We're pretty much in agreement on all of this.
QuoteThe major issue I see is that DEI is mostly fluff and these discussions just devolve into arguments over the wording. You will never convince Marshy and their ilk that white privilege is the problem or a suitable term.
Not quite sure who are part of my "ilk", but is "white privilege" really
THE problem?
The one kind of privilege that has the most tangible effect
by far is socioeconomic; i.e. the family and environment into which you're born, but it doesn't really help the narrative because it cuts
across identity lines of race, gender, etc. (How many of the wealthy DEI pushers are voluntarily giving up their wealth? That's one of the "privilege" items that actually
can be voluntarily given up.)
QuoteHowever, almost all of them would support a system that provides equal access to opportunity for all, so the whole argument is mostly meaningless. It is quite possible to address the problem without agreeing on the terminology, and force feeding everyone these concepts is largely counterproductive.
It's not so much about agreeing on the terminology, as focusing on the concrete actions that can be taken that don't require subtle (or not-so-subtle)
disparagement of one group or other.
QuoteFor the bulk of us who reside somewhere in the middle, it is hard to take DEI proponents seriously when there are so many easily remedied problems that are left unaddressed.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Quote from: artalot on January 17, 2024, 02:02:58 PMWell, at the risk of being shouted down, Golden's definition is correct. Peggy McIntosh (one of the most-cited scholars on this issue) defines white privilege as an "invisible package of unearned assets" that white people can count upon without having to think about it. She says nothing about recognition or virtue. Please read McIntosh's "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" and the brilliant critique by Gina Crosley-Corcoran, "Explaining White Privilege to a Broke White Person."
We're scholars. Do the homework.
Yes, and again yes. Reasonable people agree on all this.
But what do definitions of this type accomplish?
Or to put it another way: What Kron said.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 18, 2024, 07:39:34 AMQuote from: Kron3007 on January 18, 2024, 07:14:40 AMI am in Canada, so my examples are from here, but we had a truth and reconciliation commission do a report in which they produced 94 calls to action. I believe the report was released in 2015. Since then, I think they have addressed 13. This is from a government that claims to put DEI front and centre and launched the commission in the first place.
In Canada, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, we still have hundreds of first nation communities without safe drinking water. First nation schools in Ontario receive less funding per student (funded federally) compared to non-indigenous schools (funded provincially).
These are examples of problems that are glaringly problematic and have fairly easy solutions. There are plenty more. Instead of actually taking action, we just do a bunch of meaningless work and establish new administrative positions and offices to give the impression that we are doing something. I now put a lot of time and effort into dressing my windows despite the fact that it has almost no impact and has only made me bitter and skeptical about the whole thing.
We're pretty much in agreement on all of this.
QuoteThe major issue I see is that DEI is mostly fluff and these discussions just devolve into arguments over the wording. You will never convince Marshy and their ilk that white privilege is the problem or a suitable term.
Not quite sure who are part of my "ilk", but is "white privilege" really THE problem?
The one kind of privilege that has the most tangible effect by far is socioeconomic; i.e. the family and environment into which you're born, but it doesn't really help the narrative because it cuts across identity lines of race, gender, etc. (How many of the wealthy DEI pushers are voluntarily giving up their wealth? That's one of the "privilege" items that actually can be voluntarily given up.)
QuoteHowever, almost all of them would support a system that provides equal access to opportunity for all, so the whole argument is mostly meaningless. It is quite possible to address the problem without agreeing on the terminology, and force feeding everyone these concepts is largely counterproductive.
It's not so much about agreeing on the terminology, as focusing on the concrete actions that can be taken that don't require subtle (or not-so-subtle) disparagement of one group or other.
QuoteFor the bulk of us who reside somewhere in the middle, it is hard to take DEI proponents seriously when there are so many easily remedied problems that are left unaddressed.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Your ilk are people arguing about the definitions and/or existence of white privilege on the internet I suppose.
As noted, we actually agree on most of this topic, but could squabble about the underlying causes and definitions. This is not very productive, so I will no be doing that.
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 18, 2024, 12:04:35 PMYour ilk are people arguing about the definitions and/or existence of white privilege on the internet I suppose.
As noted, we actually agree on most of this topic, but could squabble about the underlying causes and definitions. This is not very productive, so I will no be doing that.
I've never said white privilege (or male privilege) don't exist; but like all kinds of other privilege,
framing problems in those terms is largely pointless in practical terms, and it's divisive
in principle.
I honestly don't see how, as Golden said, she could see it as a way to
"inform and support an inclusive community". In what universe does telling people they are
fundamentally different make them all feel
included?
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 18, 2024, 12:28:13 PMQuote from: Kron3007 on January 18, 2024, 12:04:35 PMYour ilk are people arguing about the definitions and/or existence of white privilege on the internet I suppose.
As noted, we actually agree on most of this topic, but could squabble about the underlying causes and definitions. This is not very productive, so I will no be doing that.
I've never said white privilege (or male privilege) don't exist; but like all kinds of other privilege, framing problems in those terms is largely pointless in practical terms, and it's divisive in principle.
I honestly don't see how, as Golden said, she could see it as a way to "inform and support an inclusive community". In what universe does telling people they are fundamentally different make them all feel included?
You probably need to concede that socioeconomic class is definitely tied to race and history in the Americas, Marshy. It is kind of fact.
Peggy McIntosh makes a very good case and she writes beautifully. I would find it hard to argue against her commonsense observations. Then it is kind of clear, in a general sort of way, about how she would resolve this big conundrum.
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.
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.
Peggy McIntosh makes a very good case and she writes beautifully. I would find it hard to argue against her commonsense observations. Then it is kind of clear, in a general sort of way, about how she would resolve this big conundrum.
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.
So Wahoo, if
you were appointed as DEI director at some institution, what's an example of a measure
you would put in place that would achieve something that isn't accomplished by the normal anti-discrimination policies, but that doesn't
"turn awkward allies into targets, hence awkward adversaries", and what language would
you use to explain the need for it?
QuoteQuoteThey 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.
Quote from: ciao_yall on January 19, 2024, 06:48:20 AMQuoteQuoteThey 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.
True, but I see a lot of diversity hires currently. In this case, that position really does mean less for others. I'm not saying I am 100% against them, I have mixed feelings.
Quote from: ciao_yall on January 19, 2024, 06:48:20 AMQuoteQuoteThey 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.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 19, 2024, 04:52:25 AMSo Wahoo, if you were appointed as DEI director at some institution, what's an example of a measure you would put in place that would achieve something that isn't accomplished by the normal anti-discrimination policies, but that doesn't "turn awkward allies into targets, hence awkward adversaries", and what language would you use to explain the need for it?
Honestly, Marshy, I don't know. There is no magic for big historical dilemmas. The best thing might be to let the culture heal naturally.
We have had progress----we have women and minority Nobel Prize winners; we have women, gay, and people of color in high political positions; we have had our first African-American president; we have women and people of color as college presidents (I've actually worked under an African-American chancellor, and three levels of my bosses were all women); the entertainment industry is full of people of color, etc. So perhaps we simply need to follow the invisible hand as it sweeps changes into our lives.
The one thing I would enforce are strict rules regarding overt racial, homophobic, or gendered violent or threatening actions----but I think these are already prohibited by law. And I would mandate any open dialogue about race, gender, etc. as long as it was not violent or threatening.
Why are you asking me----someone who is dubious of DEI----what I would do if I were "in charge" of DEI?
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 (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.
Quote from: bio-nonymous on January 19, 2024, 01:58:03 PMQuote 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 (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.
Fine. Okay. I made no claims about any of that.
But racism within living memory has played an outsized role in Black poverty. We can't pretend that it hasn't. That was my point.
It is fine with me if we shift our attentions to socioeconomic factors, although I suspect it will create more of the same conundrum that we have now just with a different complexion (no play on words).
DEI programs seem to be more about virtue signalling than accomplishing concrete goals. The JHM Equity Statement (https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/diversity/equity-statement) doesn't address what concrete steps need to be taken to achieve the outcomes stated.
QuoteAt Johns Hopkins Medicine, we believe that everyone has a role in promoting diversity, inclusion, and equity in health care, research, and education.
We must acknowledge, actively address and work toward effectively managing our negative biases, so that we collectively make decisions that improve the lives of our patients, our colleagues, our learners, and our community.
We stand against discrimination and oppression in all their forms.
It is vital that we achieve equity for all, including those who are most vulnerable.
It isn't clear if the Chief Diversity Officer does anything other than send memos that defy logic and common sense. The memo under discussion lists as privileged (i) able-bodied, (ii) heterosexuals, (iii) cisgender, (iv), middle aged, (v) middle or owning class people, (vi), males, in addition to other clearly disadvantaged groups.
DEI programs would have far more credibility if they were to show how their programs/efforts helped students graduate by providing support such as mentoring, tutoring, help with tuition, and the like which are far more useful and tangible than vague statements using buzz words that don't mean anything. These programs would also be helping the disadvantaged students if they were to waive tuition based on parental income regardles of skin color. The salary that goes to the diversity officers could be used to fund at least 10-15 students in any given year.
Here in the city, our immigrant students from Asia, for example, who have dark skins and whose parents work in menial jobs are considered privileged by virtue of identifying as Asian.
Too many DEI programs are used as weapons as in the case of the ASU incident where two proponents of DEI harassed a couple of white students for having certain stikcers on either their computers or their tshirts. The students with the offending stickers were studying for a test in a very large "multicultural" room which, according to the DEI activists was for the exclusive use of non-white students.
End of rant.
Quote from: bio-nonymous on January 19, 2024, 01:58:03 PMQuote 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 (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.
You can easily recognize white privilege while also acknowledging other issues. It's true there are plenty of poor white people, but there is still white privilege. For example, if a poor white person and a poor black person committed the same crime, the black person is likely to receive a longer sentence. So, even poor whites benefit from the system (or it penalized others), although I do think the term is problematic.
Recently, 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.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 19, 2024, 10:12:08 AMQuote from: ciao_yall on January 19, 2024, 06:48:20 AMQuoteQuoteThey 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.
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.
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.)
Quote from: bio-nonymous on January 19, 2024, 01:58:03 PMQuote 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 (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.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 20, 2024, 12:56:42 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 20, 2024, 08:52:57 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on January 20, 2024, 12:56:42 PMQuote 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.
Update on the diversity officer:
QuoteJohns Hopkins Medicine chief diversity officer steps down (https://www.baltimoresun.com/2024/03/06/johns-hopkins-diversity-officer/) two months after backlash over 'privilege' email
Her definition of "privilege" included an assorted list of people and groups (https://baltimorefishbowl.com/stories/johns-hopkins-medicine-chief-diversity-officer-steps-down-two-months-after-backlash-over-privilege-email/), including heterosexual and cisgender people:
QuoteIn her Monthly Diversity Digest email in January, Golden defined privilege as "a set of unearned benefits given to people who are in a specific social group. Privilege operates on personal, interpersonal, cultural and institutional levels, and it provides advantages and favors to members of dominant groups at the expense of members of other groups."
Golden listed social groups that have privilege, including white people, able-bodied people, heterosexuals, cisgender people, males, Christians, middle or owning class people, middle-aged people, English-speaking people.
"Privilege is characteristically invisible to people who have it," Golden continued in her email. "People in dominant groups often believe they have earned the privileges they enjoy or that everyone could have access to these privileges if only they worked to earn them. In fact, privileges are unearned and granted to people in the dominant groups whether they want those privileges or not, and regardless of their stated intent."
Quote from: Langue_doc on March 10, 2024, 10:47:37 AMUpdate on the diversity officer:
QuoteJohns Hopkins Medicine chief diversity officer steps down (https://www.baltimoresun.com/2024/03/06/johns-hopkins-diversity-officer/) two months after backlash over 'privilege' email
Her definition of "privilege" included an assorted list of people and groups (https://baltimorefishbowl.com/stories/johns-hopkins-medicine-chief-diversity-officer-steps-down-two-months-after-backlash-over-privilege-email/), including heterosexual and cisgender people:
QuoteIn her Monthly Diversity Digest email in January, Golden defined privilege as "a set of unearned benefits given to people who are in a specific social group. Privilege operates on personal, interpersonal, cultural and institutional levels, and it provides advantages and favors to members of dominant groups at the expense of members of other groups."
Golden listed social groups that have privilege, including white people, able-bodied people, heterosexuals, cisgender people, males, Christians, middle or owning class people, middle-aged people, English-speaking people.
Taken together, these suggest that countries should forbid tourism from other countries where they speak different languages, so that people in the country they're visiting aren't wielding their privilege "at the expense" of the tourists.
Quote from: marshwiggle on March 10, 2024, 11:17:35 AMQuote from: Langue_doc on March 10, 2024, 10:47:37 AMUpdate on the diversity officer:
QuoteJohns Hopkins Medicine chief diversity officer steps down (https://www.baltimoresun.com/2024/03/06/johns-hopkins-diversity-officer/) two months after backlash over 'privilege' email
Her definition of "privilege" included an assorted list of people and groups (https://baltimorefishbowl.com/stories/johns-hopkins-medicine-chief-diversity-officer-steps-down-two-months-after-backlash-over-privilege-email/), including heterosexual and cisgender people:
QuoteIn her Monthly Diversity Digest email in January, Golden defined privilege as "a set of unearned benefits given to people who are in a specific social group. Privilege operates on personal, interpersonal, cultural and institutional levels, and it provides advantages and favors to members of dominant groups at the expense of members of other groups."
Golden listed social groups that have privilege, including white people, able-bodied people, heterosexuals, cisgender people, males, Christians, middle or owning class people, middle-aged people, English-speaking people.
Taken together, these suggest that countries should forbid tourism from other countries where they speak different languages, so that people in the country they're visiting aren't wielding their privilege "at the expense" of the tourists.
That's pretty funny, Marshy.
What I always have to wonder about is the rhetoric in communications such as this. What did Golden think she would accomplish?
When humans get angry they want someone or something to blame. For some people this is an obsession.
Trouble is, we cannot hold the people who created our cultural inequities and conundrums accountable----they are dead and gone.
We cannot control the bigots. They also have the First Amendment, money, and voting rights.
We could band together...but then we don't have an easy answer to life's big problems.
So some people strike out at the people they can reach, even if they are awkward allies.
FOX news and the Trumpy cabal loves stuff like this; it's their bread and butter. They will find it risible, mockable, and infuriating in a manner that they utterly enjoy. They actively seek out stuff like this. No doubt this is sitting on Gov. DeSantis' desk as we post.
None of them will be convinced by Golden's email. Not at all. She plays right into their preconceived notions and prejudices.
And she would face the firing squad before conceding that academia in particular has worked to even the decks and that things are getting better at least in part due to the good will and honest concern of the people she attacks.
With terrible irony, Golden entirely empowers her adversaries and alienates her allies on a national stage.
From the article:
QuoteRepublican politicians and conservative media outlets seized the email as an example that diversity, equity and inclusion work is discrimination paid for with tax dollars. U.S. Rep. Andy Harris, Maryland's only Republican congressman, described the diversity memo as racist and called for Golden's termination.
I understand why some people are angry. For the life of me, I do not understand why folks cannot see that this style of discourse is failing, and I do not understand why they cannot be more fair-minded and rational.
Feel free to strawman, hyperbolize, or simply insult now.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on March 10, 2024, 05:34:22 PMFor the life of me, I do not understand why folks cannot see that this style of discourse is failing, and I do not understand why they cannot be more fair-minded and rational.
For many, (as in this case), they fail to see the irony in saying how
insurmountable the obstacles are while
their own success reflects how far things have come in a few decades. (And of course,
any system has room for improvement, but pointing that out doesn't require total cynicism about it.)
Quote from: Langue_doc on March 10, 2024, 10:47:37 AMUpdate on the diversity officer:
QuoteJohns Hopkins Medicine chief diversity officer steps down (https://www.baltimoresun.com/2024/03/06/johns-hopkins-diversity-officer/) two months after backlash over 'privilege' email
Her definition of "privilege" included an assorted list of people and groups (https://baltimorefishbowl.com/stories/johns-hopkins-medicine-chief-diversity-officer-steps-down-two-months-after-backlash-over-privilege-email/), including heterosexual and cisgender people:
QuoteIn her Monthly Diversity Digest email in January, Golden defined privilege as "a set of unearned benefits given to people who are in a specific social group. Privilege operates on personal, interpersonal, cultural and institutional levels, and it provides advantages and favors to members of dominant groups at the expense of members of other groups."
Golden listed social groups that have privilege, including white people, able-bodied people, heterosexuals, cisgender people, males, Christians, middle or owning class people, middle-aged people, English-speaking people.
"Privilege is characteristically invisible to people who have it," Golden continued in her email. "People in dominant groups often believe they have earned the privileges they enjoy or that everyone could have access to these privileges if only they worked to earn them. In fact, privileges are unearned and granted to people in the dominant groups whether they want those privileges or not, and regardless of their stated intent."
Torn between feeling sorry for somebody who has been forced to step down by a baying mob of critics, and wondering how anybody could ever have provoked said baying mob of critics in such a knuckleheaded fashion. Here's hoping that Johns Hopkins can find a new DEI officer who can avoid saying such egregious things.
Or maybe we could hired competent recruiters to find and recruit disadvantaged students, whoever they are, and help them with their applications.
Let the Dean of Students deal with the bad actors should they surface.