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

[ciao_yall]

They 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]

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.

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. 

[marshwiggle]

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.

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.

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.

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.)

[Stockmann]

You 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]

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.

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

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.

[Langue_doc]

Update on the diversity officer:

Johns Hopkins Medicine chief diversity officer steps down two months after backlash over 'privilege' email

Her definition of "privilege" included an assorted list of people and groups, including heterosexual and cisgender people:

In 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."

[marshwiggle]

Update on the diversity officer:

Johns Hopkins Medicine chief diversity officer steps down two months after backlash over 'privilege' email

Her definition of "privilege" included an assorted list of people and groups, including heterosexual and cisgender people:

In 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.

[Wahoo Redux]

Update on the diversity officer:

Johns Hopkins Medicine chief diversity officer steps down two months after backlash over 'privilege' email

Her definition of "privilege" included an assorted list of people and groups, including heterosexual and cisgender people:

In 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:

Republican 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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

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.)

[apl68]

Update on the diversity officer:

Johns Hopkins Medicine chief diversity officer steps down two months after backlash over 'privilege' email

Her definition of "privilege" included an assorted list of people and groups, including heterosexual and cisgender people:

In 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. 

[Wahoo Redux]

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.