I loved Subramanya's journalism during Covid but this story is very problematic. Suicide is complex and to say that a man committed suicide because a Black woman was mean to him in a DEI session is exhibiting precisely the kind of white fragility that people of color say stands in the way of their viewpoints being heard and appreciated i…
I loved Subramanya's journalism during Covid but this story is very problematic. Suicide is complex and to say that a man committed suicide because a Black woman was mean to him in a DEI session is exhibiting precisely the kind of white fragility that people of color say stands in the way of their viewpoints being heard and appreciated in our society.
And let's not forget that this man complained to a government agency about his treatment AND RECEIVED SEVEN WEEKS OF BACK PAY. How is a person awarded seven weeks of back pay for a bad DEI session to be conceived as a victim?
The story depends a lot on emotion and innuendo and offers very little in the way of facts to support its points. It implies that others distanced themselves from Bilkszto due to the need to conform and a fear of public shaming. I guess the members of the safety board who awarded him back pay didn't feel that way! And so if a government agency affirmed this man, why would others be so afraid to? Perhaps there were other factors.
It is possible that the man was having a mental breakdown, that this breakdown led to his eventual suicide and that colleagues distanced themselves from him due to this issue, not because of his resistance to a DEI session. But that possibility is never addressed in this article.
I loved Subramanya's journalism during Covid but this story is very problematic. Suicide is complex and to say that a man committed suicide because a Black woman was mean to him in a DEI session is exhibiting precisely the kind of white fragility that people of color say stands in the way of their viewpoints being heard and appreciated in our society.
And let's not forget that this man complained to a government agency about his treatment AND RECEIVED SEVEN WEEKS OF BACK PAY. How is a person awarded seven weeks of back pay for a bad DEI session to be conceived as a victim?
The story depends a lot on emotion and innuendo and offers very little in the way of facts to support its points. It implies that others distanced themselves from Bilkszto due to the need to conform and a fear of public shaming. I guess the members of the safety board who awarded him back pay didn't feel that way! And so if a government agency affirmed this man, why would others be so afraid to? Perhaps there were other factors.
It is possible that the man was having a mental breakdown, that this breakdown led to his eventual suicide and that colleagues distanced themselves from him due to this issue, not because of his resistance to a DEI session. But that possibility is never addressed in this article.