DEI

Diversity, equity, and inclusion. On their own, these are not inherently bad. The abundant programs embracing the initials DEI, on the other hand, can be seriously concerning.

In all fairness, I have managed to avoid these programs. This is probably for the best. From what I hear about them, I don't think I could handle it. This isn't just because I listen to the critics. My concerns actually come more from listening to supporters.

I have read about how eye-opening DEI programs can be. The same people praising DEI frequently provide obviously cherry-picked data meant to promote an agenda. In other words, people are being intentionally deceived for the purpose of manipulating what people think.

Among the common views among DEI supporters is the idea that we must embrace explicit racism as a solution to implicit and systemic racism. I'm fine with informing people that people might not recognize their own bias on a conscious level, but I strongly disagree with the idea that pitting races against each other is a valid solution. Even more so, I reject the idea that everybody must embrace explicit racism. This includes affirmative action, shopping at a store because it is a black-owned business, and voting for someone because he is a minority. I would much rather address underlying problems.

A common tactic to push the DEI agenda is to villainize white people because of the atrocities committed by other white people who died off a long time ago. If we want to address racial stereotyping, we can't judge people based on the actions of others who happen to be the same race. DEI seems to be worse than that. They expect everyone to embrace this problematic mindset.

One of the big problems I have seen with the portrayal of diversity programs is the shallow checklist definition of diversity that they seem to be using. In many ways, it seems like the shallow definition is being used as an excuse to attack mental diversity. We are pushing the idea that it doesn't matter if you match any of the checklist items as long as we are otherwise identical.

I would say diversity and inclusion are fairly closely related. You can't support diversity if you don't include people of diverse backgrounds, and are you really inclusive if you are unwilling to include people of diverse backgrounds.

What about equity? Equity is where explicit racism typically comes in. Instead of addressing underlying issues with racism, we resort to racism as a way of countering racism. Creating different rules for different races is clearly not a valid long-term solution, and I would definitely say we have debunked it as a valid short-term solution.

If we really want to level the playing field, we need to address the reason things are uneven. There is a difference between socioeconomic status and race, but financially struggling families are disproportionately black. Economic mobility can be useful. If we want to make this world a more equitable place, let's do something about the biggest disaster when it comes to economic mobility, credentialism. Credentialism is an undeniably inequitable concept.

Credentialism is the idea that we care far more about academic credentials than who people are or what they have to offer. Rich families will always have access to more expensive institutions. Pushing credentials harder leads to credential inflation, putting our best opportunities out of the reach for families who are not already well-off. Simply put, disadvantaged families will never win in a credentialist arms race.

If a job does not require a college degree, employers shouldn't require a college degree. If a job doesn't require a high school diploma, employers shouldn't require a high school diploma. If you want to get technical, there is nothing that can be learned in school that can't be elsewhere.

We need to find ways to ensure access to educational resources outside the confines of a restrictive schooling environment. We need to allow people to prove their ability elsewhere. Employers need to stop imposing ceilings on their employees who don't buy a piece of paper. Instead of buying their way to the top, people should be able to work their way to the top. This is not just about the financial investment. Many people, including some who are highly capable, do not learn well in a restrictive environment.

Not too long ago, I explained some of my views regarding the transgender community. Our views on transgender are technically not right or wrong. If people truly believe they are a certain gender, we should not force them to live their lives as a different gender. Most gendered situations have been gendered for biological reasons, and we should not tell people that they are not allowed to see gender in terms of biology.

How do we get contradictory viewpoints to coexist? Having DEI experts can have value if done right. I don't want to see a perspective forced onto people. What I want to see is someone who can ensure that people who are genuinely different can all feel welcome. This is very different from forcing everyone to sacrifice mental diversity in favor of one person's skewed view of what's right.