Comment by bondarchuk
6 days ago
The points "Viewpoint Diversity in Admissions and Hiring" and "Discontinuation of DEI" seem inconsistent. Enforcing "viewpoint diversity" is a DEI practice in all but name. Actually, it is even in the name. Also with the merit-based stuff, of course. What if people of merit skew towards certain viewpoints? Then hiring/admissions won't be merit based after all?
While you are completely right about the impossible/conflicting legal standards here, this is not an unusual state of things. For example: it has been illegal to discriminate for a very long time, but it has also been de facto illegal to have demographic compositions substantially different from the general population. So, they've always been faced with the problem of needing to either discriminate to get the numbers to match, or not discriminating and risking the numbers falling out of line. The real law has always been, and always will be, prosecutorial discretion. Whatever party is in control will choose whether they go after you or not, and they can because you're always violating one side of something.
> it has also been de facto illegal to have demographic compositions substantially different from the general population
How so? To which law or case precedent?
Any law or policy that has a "disproportionate impact" on a protected class is subject to challenge, and will often lose in other public policy matters. I've not seen it happen in school demographics, though most, if not all, schools had some form of affirmative action policy until recently.
2 replies →
Do you know what "de facto" means? I didn't say "de jure," and you're asking for de jure evidence.
2 replies →
> It has been illegal to discriminate for a very long time, but it has also been de facto illegal to have demographic compositions substantially different from the general population.
> So, they've always been faced with the problem of needing to either discriminate to get the numbers to match, or not discriminating and risking the numbers falling out of line.
Not disagreeing with your larger point, but this sounds wrong (in a sense that, I don’t think that’s the case).
If what you claim was the case, how has CalTech been managing to have such a large percentage of Asian undergrad students (44% according to their Fall 2024-2025 enrollment data[0], with numbers from previous years not straying that far off either) without ever even a hint of getting in trouble over it (given that Asian people make up roughly 7% of the US population)?
I am sure there are similar examples of other schools, this was just the first major known one that came to my mind. Perchance you are correct, and there is simply something special that CalTech has (and Harvard doesn’t) that lets them not worry about this. But that seems unlikely.
0. https://registrar.caltech.edu/records/enrollment-statistics
> de facto illegal to have demographic compositions substantially different from the general population
The Trump administration mid level staffing decisions are something like 70%+ white men! This seems laughable. Controversial maybe, certainly not "illegal" or they wouldn't have done it.
You need to read what I wrote more carefully. The entire point is that whoever is in power decides which law actually gets applied and to whom. Do you think for some reason that the Trump administration risks being prosecuted by the Trump administration?
9 replies →
Viewpoint diversity is that you want fsr right propagated more. Bonus points for open racism and sexism.
However, left of any kind is not part of diversity. No one arguing for Palestine, no one arguing for equality. I was tempted to say "no communists" but those kind of don't matter.
Cowards are now saying it was a mistake: "Trump Officials Blame Mistake for Setting Off Confrontation With Harvard" - https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/18/business/trump-harvard-le...
[flagged]
Viewpoint diversity is not the same as diversity of opinion. When someone is seriously trying to justify DEI practices, viewpoint diversity is usually the first thing they talk about. They argue that having people from diverse backgrounds is important, as diverse experiences lead to diverse viewpoints, which may allow the organization notice and do things it could otherwise not do. They may even argue that if viewpoint diversity and diversity of opinion are in conflict, viewpoint diversity should prevail, as it contributes directly to the mission of the organization.
Or at least that's how it started, before DEI became a big controversial topic.
[flagged]
You are using a throwaway.
Your own views are not valuable enough for you to risk your livelihood for.
Our founding fathers dressed as indians to throw tea into the Boston Harbor. You and your ilk demand the bank account information of anyone opposing your views.
1 reply →
> telling things (as) they really are
Lol, what reality do you live in?
> What if people of merit skew towards certain viewpoints?
What if admissions is actually a cyborg alien race??? I am just asking questions!
Having the government dictate University level programs is bad, we should all agree to let Universities and colleges run themselves.
Was this pedantry really worthwhile? The current interpretation of "diversity" is of outward characteristics, not points of view. So, technically, you're right. Kudos.
It is far from universally accepted that 'the current interpretation of diversity is of outward characteristics, not points of view'. In fact, I would be surprised if anyone who favors DEI aggrees with that statement.
Moreover, the actual interpretation of most proponents of diversity is very much that we desire a diversity of views, which it wants to get through getting a diversity of backgrounds. That is, of course, not the only reason behind DEI. There is also the fact that it is fair to allow people of all backgrounds the same opportunity.
Wikipedia[1] says
>Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce in characteristics such as race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, age, culture, class, veteran status, or religion.
Brittanica[2] says
>Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs—meant to address historical and systemic disparities based on race, gender, age, ability, and sexual orientation in the workplace
CNN lists the following as examples of the title of this article[3] ("DEI programs benefit many groups, not just Black and brown communities"):
>White women
>LGBTQ+ people
>Families who need IVF
>Disabled people
>Veterans
This is the first three links I clicked on, so it seems to be broadly agreed upon. It's (obviously) not an exhaustive search of the literature, and I'd love to see your side of it.
I have heard ideological diversity used as a defense of DEI, but it doesn't seem to be central. I've never heard of a DEI push to get more conservatives in tech or academia, for example.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity,_equity,_and_inclusi...
[2]https://www.britannica.com/topic/diversity-equity-and-inclus...
[3]https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/08/us/dei-programs-diversity-lis...
Try talking about race as a white man during a DEI seminar. Unless you very carefully follow the approved messaging, you will be in trouble.
1 reply →
Nah, you're just confusing the KPI with the desire.
You get different viewpoints by having people with different sets of experience.
Differing gender, race, and socioeconomic backgrounds are drivers of different experiences, and therefore viewpoints. You can't easily measure "did this company hire different experiences", but you can easily measure "did this company hire a bunch of different genders, races, etc", which doesn't guarantee differing viewpoints in individuals, but does strongly suggest it in aggregate/at the statistical level.
This is so hilariously reductive it reads like satire. As if someone’s life experience can be deduced from their immutable characteristics.
3 replies →
It's the points of view that people are after when they promote diversity. The outward characteristics are at best a convenient proxy. Monocultures fail, diversity is a hedge against that.
That is absolutely not the case even for a moment. No white leftist seeks out black conservatives like Thomas Sowell. Not even for a moment. Leftism is a monoculture that uses cancelling as a way to force ideological uniformity.
2 replies →
> The current interpretation of "diversity" is of outward characteristics, not points of view.
Only, amusingly, to people one particular point of view. No, that's ridiculous. There is no woker impulse than listening carefully and respectfully to all points of view.
DEI has led to anything but viewpoint diversity, fostering ideological conformity via practices such as DEI statements, DEI metrics, mandatory trainings, or cancel culture leading to censorship.
That the current administration is also purging viewpoints it doesn't like, adopting the same authoritarian mindset, but having it enforced by the government (which is worse, IMO), that goes to show horseshoe theory is true.
> DEI statements
Just going to point out that this is absolutely not the same thing as rescinding research grants using some lazy grepping of abstracts like the absolute clown show going on now.
> horseshoe theory is true.
Had to look this one up. Apparently the "far left" and "far right" are somehow the exact things we are dealing with here and now.
Nope, sorry. Not equivalent. Not at all.