The whole blog is like this; it's all sort of comically smug "everybody else in the entire world is wrong, and here is a 7-point axiomatic derivation proving it"†, much of it depending on specific definitions of specific words. Check-mate, atheists! There are lots of good, sharp, critical things to say about the DEI movement, most especially "institutional" DEI, but you can't meaningfully say them when you write with…
This sounds like the kind of thing you say when you are annoyed but cant find a good argument against the points being made.
Did this feel like a compelling argument when you wrote it? You thought to yourself, huh, maybe this person can't possibly come up with an argument for diversity that doesn't run aground of an appeal for "viewpoint diversity"?
Part of affirmative action (AA) involves addressing some of the issues specific to american society, I have no clue how diversity is handled outside the US but would love to hear someone else's experience To a certain degree prejudice is ingrained in the US. Not officially in laws, but in attitudes that some (not all) people hold. Not any one specific group of people either, but prejudice across different ethnic grou…
part of the problem with Asian Americans in the application process is that they are treated just as Asians. My Computer Science Program at University of Pennsylvania was about 74% Asian, 20% Indian, and 5% European. There was Problem is, the 74% Asian was almost entirely Chinese born Chinese, and I do feel it hurt the program. They did not want to join groups with non-Chinese people because they preferred speaking Chinese in group projects. They didn't want to talk to you before or after class if you were not speaking Mandarin. The chit chat and sharing of ideas is the whole point of higher education IMO. There were other problems not related to the fact they only wanted to speak Chinese their whole duration of their time in the program (such as talking during class, cheating, etc.) but I wont go into that. The point is, having nearly 70% of the program being Chinese born Chinese made the education experience worse. Unfortunately, American born Chinese (or even Korean) gets lumped into the Asian group and they have to compete against 1 billion Chinese applicants taking paper GRE tests (cheating on these paper tests is common, as you can buy the answers ahead of the test ).
I care about diversity. I've been a women in stem nearly my entire life (thanks dad!). However diversity quotas, esg scores, and all the manipulation in "diversity" and "woke" today is more about incompetent children of the rich who need fake jobs that make a lot of money. I've refused to hire an english major young woman on my development team even under extreme pressure from management because she's a women, but al…
> I've refused to hire an english major young woman on my development team even under extreme pressure from management because she's a women, but also because she's the CTO's wife's niece That's not "woke", that's just garden variety nepotism.
It's not "garden variety" nepotism, it's woke nepotism, and it's why so many people have issues with diversity initiatives.
> I've refused to hire an english major young woman on my development team even under extreme pressure from management because she's a women, but also because she's the CTO's wife's niece That's not "woke", that's just garden variety nepotism.
That's the point, "woke" gives garden variety nepotism a nice shiny ESG approved cover.
If we get rid of everything that some asshole can use as cover, there's not going to be a lot left.
Pick an Indian CEO of a major American company. When did they start their career? How many of their fellow Indians started in the same timeframe? (I think "a lot!") Some major tech company Indian CEOs: Sundhar Pichai (Alphabet) ~1993 Satya Nadella (Microsoft) ~1990 Parag Agrawal (Twitter) ~2011 (with PhD, but still an outlier even discounting that) Shantanu Narayen (Adobe) ~1986 Arvind Krishna (IBM) ~1990 Sanjay Mehr…
My comment was in reference to yours and the parent combined. It should be easy to look at the C-board and find diversity because in a global economy there are tons of people with the experience as you've proved with your great example.
OK, if GGP agrees that those companies are diverse at the top by virtue of those CEOs, then are we all aligned that there's no issue there?
> I've refused to hire an english major young woman on my development team even under extreme pressure from management because she's a women, but also because she's the CTO's wife's niece That's not "woke", that's just garden variety nepotism.
It's not "garden variety" nepotism, it's woke nepotism, and it's why so many people have issues with diversity initiatives.
The word "woke" here is just doing the job of establishing it at "the kind of nepotism I find threatening", right?
Later
(The score on this is absolutely my fault for being much too casual about the point I was trying to make.)
For an example of this, see this story about Canadian professor and laser scientist Patanjali Kambhampati who was denied for grants because his avowed commitment to mere non-discrimination and merit-based hiring was deemed insufficient. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/minority-professor-deni...
I don't see a problem with this, especially if part of the mission of the folks giving the grant is to create opportunities for under-represented people.
"If I want to focus on merit, fairness and equality, then you get called out as racist or sexist."
I'm still waiting for an example where someone can actually vet people based on merit, fairness and equality without any of their own unconscious biases being a factor. Humans are most comfortable with people that think, look, and act like them. No matter how hard they try, it skews their thinking at times.
In the academy, left-wing beliefs dominate; therefore, the affirmative action supporters would be first and foremost demanding preferences for conservatives, libertarians, moderates, fascists, monarchists, and other people who do not accept the current progressive orthodoxy.
Everyone knows that isn’t happening. Virtually none (maybe actually zero) of the woke, social-justice-warrior people support philosophical diversity. The most “woke” people are the ones who aggressively try to silence all dissent (https://fakenous.net/?p=2932) and to exclude conservatives, libertarians, etc., from the Academy. So they not only fail to value intellectual diversity; they are just about the most stridently anti-diversity people in the entire country.
It's not "garden variety" nepotism, it's woke nepotism, and it's why so many people have issues with diversity initiatives.
The word "woke" here is just doing the job of establishing it at "the kind of nepotism I find threatening", right? Later (The score on this is absolutely my fault for being much too casual about the point I was trying to make.)
Seems like the word "woke" is doing the job of establishing "the kind of critique of nepotism that I find threatening" in your own case...
It's not "garden variety" nepotism, it's woke nepotism, and it's why so many people have issues with diversity initiatives.
The word "woke" here is just doing the job of establishing it at "the kind of nepotism I find threatening", right? Later (The score on this is absolutely my fault for being much too casual about the point I was trying to make.)
Another reason people don't like diversity initiatives is that whenever you try to have an honest conversation about its problems, you get accused of ridiculous things, like being racist/sexist/etc or thinking nepotism is good.