Who cares about 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 groups. AA isn't independent of this prejudice, just a more recent and politicized form of it

I think the way that it has been discussed in recent years isn't going to sustain itself long term. The way that higher education discriminates against Asians is especially egregious

(source: "The reason that it is harder for Asian Americans to get into Harvard is that their “personal ratings” (a subjective evaluation of personal qualities) are, on average, significantly lower than for white applicants." (https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2019/10/01/why-th...))

The same "personal rating" bs was historically used to limit the number of Jewish applicants. At the end of the day, the Asian applicants would likely benefit from just not providing race or selecting the "other" category.

The only way that the current system can sustain itself is by having people honestly self identify, yet there's no legal ramifications for not doing this. If people genuinely want to end this system, all they have to do is stop giving it real data to work with

> Do we want to live in a world where you have less opportunity because of characteristics you were born with

Yes. I do not want to live in a world where genetic editing is used to give everyone equal opportunity. I am ok with not having the genetics to play in the NBA while others do.

Diversity should not be the end goal. A healthy society that provides basic needs for all should be. If that means we have mostly people that share X characteristics in Y field that’s fine as long as they’re the best people for the job.

An in depth analysis can still miss possible logical conclusions. I don't think the GP is saying they skipped possible analysis, just that they fail to consider alternatives.

> Oh, maybe I misinterpreted.

No worries. It's easy to misinterpret these things because there are facets of job performance in this area that wouldn't be out of place at all in a "diversity impact statement" (such as a proven, developed ability to teach and work with people from a high variety of backgrounds - which doesn't even correlate all that much with political stance per se). Nevertheless, the very notion of requiring that kind of statement is sure to introduce a sort of very real bias in hiring.

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 tone, can you? Who's going to take you seriously? Like, at a bare minimum, you have to acknowledge (or take the trouble to refute) the concerns that animate your opposition.

The author isn't a rando! This is a tenured professor of philosophy at a major university. You know, writing like a high school sophomore on a message board.

† I highly recommend his carefully reasoned, inescapable argument that everyone has the right to own a gun for a perfect example of the form.