Comment by mhb
5 days ago
Was this pedantry really worthwhile? The current interpretation of "diversity" is of outward characteristics, not points of view. So, technically, you're right. Kudos.
5 days ago
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.
I doubt you’ll be “in trouble”, whatever that means. But I do think that if you’re a white man attending a seminar about diversity, a great option is to just _listen_. Understanding that white men have done a lot of the talking on race for most of America’s history means it would behove him to listen.
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.
Yes, congratulations, you've understood why it's extremely difficult. Well done.
I suppose next you'll tell me that either you don't understand it so it shouldn't be done or that because it's hard people should give up.
Your argument dropped something - the self selecting applicant pool for Harvard.
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.
The left wants to hold people accountable, even their own. It’s always a good chuckle to see people complain about the left doing “cancel culture” when it’s conservatives that tried to cancel Bud Light, it’s conservatives that shut down opposing viewpoints (listen to Ben Shapiro or Alex Jones answer tough questions), it’s conservatives that _literally tried to cancel a democratic election_.
You may have had a point fifteen years go, but the right has recently leapfrogged the left in all of the dimensions you're concerned about.
This cultural uniformity of the left you speak of. What's it like? I mean, the right drives big trucks and puts American flags on everything and eats a lot of meat and is really enamored of loyalty and the military and the atomic family.
So what's it like for the left? Because as far as I can tell, the only element of uniformity among the left is that they agree that they shouldn't enable things that are a threat to their safety. The argument towards wokeness is pretty strong: if you're not aware of a threat, it might hurt you, so you should stay vigilant. That's not cultural uniformity, that's survival. Sure, many have run with it in a variety of weird directions, but there's no agreement on the left that those directions are good ones. It's precisely because the left isn't a monoculture that those elements are allowed to persist.
For further evidence that the left permits dissent among their ranks, note that they kind of suck at getting anything done because they're always debating each other about how it ought to be done and not doing it. Meanwhile it's the right that falls uniformly in line and goes off to do something that was poorly thought out (but hey at least they did something).
And taking this back to the article, it's precisely because the right can't tolerate disagreement that it wants to cancel academia and create a safe space where it doesn't have hear the truth about the consequences of its terrible policies. This is literally a letter about the Right cancelling something to enforce ideological uniformity.
> 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.