“Inclusion” is a red flag. The goal should be non-discrimination; past that is only fanatical compulsion. You allude to this above; every department is not going to be the precise ratios of ethnicities found in the population.
If Harvard admissions were based on merit alone, the student body would look like Hong Kong. Whether or not that …
“Inclusion” is a red flag. The goal should be non-discrimination; past that is only fanatical compulsion. You allude to this above; every department is not going to be the precise ratios of ethnicities found in the population.
If Harvard admissions were based on merit alone, the student body would look like Hong Kong. Whether or not that would be fair is too big a topic for a simple response
But when I think of DEI, I think of “trans” and “nonbinary,” not of race. And this is where “nclusion” has brought us to the bag in the airplane seat. Academic tenure is gated by a tyrannical orthodoxy around gender ideology, which is doing the fundamentally good idea a lot of harm.
"“Inclusion” is a red flag. The goal should be non-discrimination; past that is only fanatical compulsion."
Yeah, this is where it's tricky. Of course, I agree; the goal is a non-discriminatory society. But when there are many people in a society who still discriminate, isn't it necessary to give them a push if you want that non-discriminatory society to actually appear?
DEI is far from the only (or correct) way to give that push. I think it's all a huge mess. But I understand the impulse that led to this place.
“Inclusion” is a red flag. The goal should be non-discrimination; past that is only fanatical compulsion. You allude to this above; every department is not going to be the precise ratios of ethnicities found in the population.
If Harvard admissions were based on merit alone, the student body would look like Hong Kong. Whether or not that would be fair is too big a topic for a simple response
But when I think of DEI, I think of “trans” and “nonbinary,” not of race. And this is where “nclusion” has brought us to the bag in the airplane seat. Academic tenure is gated by a tyrannical orthodoxy around gender ideology, which is doing the fundamentally good idea a lot of harm.
"“Inclusion” is a red flag. The goal should be non-discrimination; past that is only fanatical compulsion."
Yeah, this is where it's tricky. Of course, I agree; the goal is a non-discriminatory society. But when there are many people in a society who still discriminate, isn't it necessary to give them a push if you want that non-discriminatory society to actually appear?
DEI is far from the only (or correct) way to give that push. I think it's all a huge mess. But I understand the impulse that led to this place.