Organizations put in place DEI for multiple reasons. It makes sense for all sorts of HR, legal, and PR reasons.
But, controversially, it also makes sense because those who oppose them to the point of quitting, are people these companies would happily see replaced.
Companies have values that they promote through policies. Y'all don't really believe every Walmart greeter wants to smile at everyone, or every call center work wants to tell everyone to have a good day.
But, if you don't want to play along. You leave.
I get people often get upset at the authoritarianism of bosses and what not. Capitalism is a system where a company has rights to put its interests before your politics. The state at times will coerce them, but let's not expect the state will go very far.
I'd tell people to support unions, but unions are in large part responsible for many of the worker policies that led to DEI. Turns out DEI is also a worker protection system. Some people just don't like which workers are protected 🤷🏾♂️
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Malcolm X has a famous quote about a black man with a PhD. That quote hit the hardest when I realized there were people I dealt with on Twitter who believed black folks with a PhD was to be assumed less intelligent than white folks with the same PhD in the same field.
One of the benefits of accepting CRT's tenet that racism is "ordinary" is that you don't get too worked up about seeing that racism, or even thinking people malicious for believing it.
Still, racism can shock you sometimes, and that's not fun.
I still believe education is one of the primary tools we have for fighting white supremacy. Unfortunately education isn't a panacea, and we will have to push through even as we gain more education. We will have to rework the tools that have restrained us.
It's trivially true that being bullied has a non-zero heritability estimate.
Yet I think there's a lot wrong in suggesting that a person's genes *cause* them to be bullied.
The actions of others should not to be attributed to being caused by your genes.
I think this comes down to the definition of the word cause by the way, and unsurprisingly, there is no consensus on what it means to cause (ask the philosophers).
We all have some of our own intuitions as to what we envision when we think of cause though.
If having genes that make you wear glasses can be said to *cause* bullying, then don't our genes cause us to be raped, murdered, or face racism?
I don't know how we can draw the line without it seeming arbitrary. That may be why the word cause is itself so fraught. Tough one.
A white professor insisting he has the right to use the n-word to his black students and they shouldn't be complaining is probably a lot worse than the white moderates MLK was complaining about.
But of course he faces no real consequences.
Always interesting who these Cancel Culture Warriors tend to choose as their great examples of the horrors of "cancel culture".
Fighting for the rights of white men to say the n-word without complaint.