Diversity, “Opportunity” and Inclusion

[Anonymous]

This is the emerging rhetoric from right-wingers who are obsessed with fighting “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” initiatives at colleges, schools and the workplace.

Pretty cynical. Sounds good, of course. But it’s not actually egalitarian since it ignores the fact that a lot of people get more opportunities than others by virtue of their chromosomes or race. And these people aren’t exactly “inclusive.”

[Anonymous]

How should equity be defined? Equal results? Equal opportunity? Equal resources?

[Anonymous]

I like it. I think what everybody except the modern american oligarches need is more opportunity. Democrats should embrace this.

[Anonymous]

They should modify it to read “equal opportunity.”

[Anonymous]

It is clever, but it’s dismissive of the very real problems of inequities built into the system.

I realize white people (it’s white men who came up with this) are tired of all this race talk, already, but systemic racism is a genuine problem. This is another example of thinking it’s OK to be born on third base and think you hit a triple.

[Anonymous]

I honestly think systematic racism is mostly due to non-white's being typically poorer than whites. If we greatly reduced income inequality, the poverty stigma associated with dark skin would go away. (well, obviously about 10% of people are racist and will always be racist. but if you are the type that things as long as one racist survives, all drastic action is permissible, then you need to grow up)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How should equity be defined? Equal results? Equal opportunity? Equal resources?

Here is the problem....the people who were brought here to serve in slavery have basically NEVER been given the same change/opportunity as white people, even white people whose families came to the US in the early 20th century. The ongoing discrimination based on skin color is real and ongoing, despite words on paper to the contrary.

Sure, there are thing like affirmative action which has worked for a relative handful of people to gain access to college and employment, but when you factor in the generational wealth accrued over centuries that has essentially be stolen, how exactly do you factor that in? And how to you factor in the ongoing hate and antipathy to people who's skin color has been radicalized as sub-human and inferior for centuries?

[Anonymous]

Great!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous[b wrote:]I honestly think systematic racism is mostly due to non-white's being typically poorer than whites[/b]. If we greatly reduced income inequality, the poverty stigma associated with dark skin would go away. (well, obviously about 10% of people are racist and will always be racist. but if you are the type that things as long as one racist survives, all drastic action is permissible, then you need to grow up)

Why do you suppose this is? You can read more here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/10/23/redlining-black-wealth/ or here https://www.segregatedbydesign.com/ (watch the video)

[Anonymous]

Yes, those are indeed the reasons. The question is how to fix it? We cannot change the past.

If we substantially reduce income inequality, if all people who work at McDonalds and as janitors have health care from the government like other civilizied nations, if all families regardless of race can live in a home with low crime, excellent schools, great parks without having to work two jobs, this will start to go away. But manditory diversity trainings and saying a diversity prayer before all meetings won't change this. Yelling at people not to be racist won't change it. Only wealth redistribution will change this and the best way to get weath redistribution is to give it to all the poor, even white male poors.

[Anonymous]

the problem is that you cannot have equality of outcome without using force - to get there and then to stay there

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the problem is that you cannot have equality of outcome without using force - to get there and then to stay there

Why do you think democrats are constantly working to ban and confiscate guns?

Because their grand plans don't work without deception and the use of force on many fronts.

[Anonymous]

that's why equality of outcome should not be the goal. The goal should be that all people who work 40 hours a week have assured health care, low crime neighborhoods, great schools with well-paid highly educated teachers, enough money to raise 2 children, and public partks. We can do that by taxing the rich like we did in the 50s. (also, those few people who cannot work 40 hours a week due to disability should have a nice studio apartment with health care)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How should equity be defined? Equal results? Equal opportunity? Equal resources?

Agree 100%. The issue with the word equity is its vagueness and certainly includes equal outcomes. Equal opportunity is the best phrase in my mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is clever, but it’s dismissive of the very real problems of inequities built into the system.

I realize white people (it’s white men who came up with this) are tired of all this race talk, already, but systemic racism is a genuine problem. This is another example of thinking it’s OK to be born on third base and think you hit a triple.

FYI. Most white people were not born in third base.