Eliminating “gifted” programs because they offend the racial sensibilities of the managerial class is a blatant exercise in privilege and ladder-pulling. I think it’s grotesque how many privileged people are happily destroying the lives of others (often, those they pretend to care about) so they don’t have to think critically about or be uncomfortable thinking about race. Seattle is the epitome of “privileged White l…
I'm pretty socially conservative, and the equality-of-outcome mindset is very unintuitive for me. It's very tempting (edit: for me ) to lazily rest on the caricature, "I don't care how many people I hurt, as long as I can help just one!" Despite that, or maybe because of that, I make a conscious effort to understand where the other side is coming from. I figure there's little chance of finding a compromise if I can't…
I understand it just fine, but there’s a fundamental disagreement, in that I don’t support racism nor view people in terms of “racial tribes” — while proponents of equity do. That’s the frame they’re working from when they say denying an Asian student a place at Harvard in favor of a less qualified black applicant is “good”: that it’s okay to harm that person because they’re yellow and we need to balance between yellows and blacks — to accomplish their Utopian vision. Collectivism when applied to race inevitably leads to institutional racism.
I don’t believe that’s something we need to “compromise” on: institutional racism was a disaster when we tried it before and modern attempts (eg, Netflix and Disney catering to those views) show that bigotry is widely unpopular and a poor way to run a company.
Sometimes you just have to say “bigotry is wrong and we’re not trying it again — no matter how you dress it up in the language of civil rights or how righteous you feel about being a bigot”.