Looks like the author and most, if not all, posters here (including me) are "anti-DEI". But can our opinions make any impact on the minds of "pro-DEI" wokesters, who seem to be growing in number and power? Or are we mostly just "preaching to the choir", i.e. making arguments that are likely to appeal primarily to those who already agree …
Looks like the author and most, if not all, posters here (including me) are "anti-DEI". But can our opinions make any impact on the minds of "pro-DEI" wokesters, who seem to be growing in number and power? Or are we mostly just "preaching to the choir", i.e. making arguments that are likely to appeal primarily to those who already agree with us. By playing "Devil's Advocate" and summoning up my inner (fake) progressive, I tried to cobble together a plausible basis for DEI ideology, in hopes of facilitating a constructive engagement with it. So, speaking in the voice of my conjured woke persona, here is the result:
The main driver of DEI is the problem of "disparate outcomes". Non-wokesters often say things like "people deserve equal opportunity, but are not guaranteed equal outcomes". But DEI thinks that equal opportunity for different demographic groups must imply roughly equal outcomes for those groups, and that any statistically significant lower socio-economic status of historically underprivileged racial, ethnic, gender, etc. groups must be due to oppression by the privileged (white and "white-adjacent") ruling class. Because if people really had equal opportunity, why wouldn't they take advantage of it? Why would they choose to remain mired in poverty, crime, poor health, crummy jobs, low educational achievement, etc.? Could it be that they are in some way culturally or genetically inferior, and that some groups are just innately on the wrong side of "The Bell Curve" (referring to the 1994 book by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray)? Speaking in religious terms, why would the Creator construct a perverse world in which that would be possible? It seems much more plausible, based on centuries of history, that external oppression is the culprit. So if the fault is external to the people suffering the oppression, so too must be the solution. And since the problems of the oppressed are acute and severe, they constitute a dire emergency that society is obligated to address immediately and vigorously.
But society seems reluctant to take on the responsibility of righting these grievous wrongs. The reason is not just that segments of society remain racist, sexist, etc. Social justice warriors also face a vast wall of ignorance and indifference among large sections of the population, for whom it is just too costly, time-consuming, and perhaps even dangerous to get involved in struggles on behalf of people they don't know or can't relate to. It's much easier to invent excuses for not acting, including blaming the victims for their own misfortune. So gaining the attention of so many indifferent people whose participation is essential to the struggle for justice requires militancy, direct action, and hyperbole. The sound of every skirmish must be amplified to maximum level. For example, any use of the "N-word" by an unauthorized person must be characterized in apocalyptic terms. The speaker must be canceled and/or fired and required to sincerely confess, repent, and atone before being allowed back into "polite society". The writer George Orwell understood these concepts. In his novel "1984", "thought criminals" were cured of their delusions in not very pleasant fashion in Room 101 of the Ministry of Love.
Applying these ideas to medical school admissions, the relatively small percentage of students from "marginalized groups" (including Blacks) is a clear indicator of unfair and irrational bias, and must be cured forthwith, even with quotas if necessary. One could try to object that even if these groups have suffered bias that has impeded their success in medical school, it would still be unfair to them, other students, and their future patients to reduce standards to accommodate them, and that remediation of their "deficiencies" must start earlier, in college. But colleges say that the problem dates back to K-12 schooling, the K-12 schools say it's too late by then and pass the buck to the parent(s), but what are the parents to do? They too have been victimized by society and deprived of the time, resources, and knowledge needed to prepare their offspring for the rigors of our system of education. So the DEI way is militant protest: "No more excuses! No more passing the buck and kicking the can down the road! Just fix it, now, and if anything goes wrong blame the white racist sexist power structure!".
Returning now to my regularly-scheduled anti-DEI self:
So, readers, how was my wokester impression? Does it contain any valid ideas, and in any case how accurately does it represent actual woke ideology so it might serve as a credible sparring partner for testing counter arguments?
Looks like the author and most, if not all, posters here (including me) are "anti-DEI". But can our opinions make any impact on the minds of "pro-DEI" wokesters, who seem to be growing in number and power? Or are we mostly just "preaching to the choir", i.e. making arguments that are likely to appeal primarily to those who already agree with us. By playing "Devil's Advocate" and summoning up my inner (fake) progressive, I tried to cobble together a plausible basis for DEI ideology, in hopes of facilitating a constructive engagement with it. So, speaking in the voice of my conjured woke persona, here is the result:
The main driver of DEI is the problem of "disparate outcomes". Non-wokesters often say things like "people deserve equal opportunity, but are not guaranteed equal outcomes". But DEI thinks that equal opportunity for different demographic groups must imply roughly equal outcomes for those groups, and that any statistically significant lower socio-economic status of historically underprivileged racial, ethnic, gender, etc. groups must be due to oppression by the privileged (white and "white-adjacent") ruling class. Because if people really had equal opportunity, why wouldn't they take advantage of it? Why would they choose to remain mired in poverty, crime, poor health, crummy jobs, low educational achievement, etc.? Could it be that they are in some way culturally or genetically inferior, and that some groups are just innately on the wrong side of "The Bell Curve" (referring to the 1994 book by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray)? Speaking in religious terms, why would the Creator construct a perverse world in which that would be possible? It seems much more plausible, based on centuries of history, that external oppression is the culprit. So if the fault is external to the people suffering the oppression, so too must be the solution. And since the problems of the oppressed are acute and severe, they constitute a dire emergency that society is obligated to address immediately and vigorously.
But society seems reluctant to take on the responsibility of righting these grievous wrongs. The reason is not just that segments of society remain racist, sexist, etc. Social justice warriors also face a vast wall of ignorance and indifference among large sections of the population, for whom it is just too costly, time-consuming, and perhaps even dangerous to get involved in struggles on behalf of people they don't know or can't relate to. It's much easier to invent excuses for not acting, including blaming the victims for their own misfortune. So gaining the attention of so many indifferent people whose participation is essential to the struggle for justice requires militancy, direct action, and hyperbole. The sound of every skirmish must be amplified to maximum level. For example, any use of the "N-word" by an unauthorized person must be characterized in apocalyptic terms. The speaker must be canceled and/or fired and required to sincerely confess, repent, and atone before being allowed back into "polite society". The writer George Orwell understood these concepts. In his novel "1984", "thought criminals" were cured of their delusions in not very pleasant fashion in Room 101 of the Ministry of Love.
Applying these ideas to medical school admissions, the relatively small percentage of students from "marginalized groups" (including Blacks) is a clear indicator of unfair and irrational bias, and must be cured forthwith, even with quotas if necessary. One could try to object that even if these groups have suffered bias that has impeded their success in medical school, it would still be unfair to them, other students, and their future patients to reduce standards to accommodate them, and that remediation of their "deficiencies" must start earlier, in college. But colleges say that the problem dates back to K-12 schooling, the K-12 schools say it's too late by then and pass the buck to the parent(s), but what are the parents to do? They too have been victimized by society and deprived of the time, resources, and knowledge needed to prepare their offspring for the rigors of our system of education. So the DEI way is militant protest: "No more excuses! No more passing the buck and kicking the can down the road! Just fix it, now, and if anything goes wrong blame the white racist sexist power structure!".
Returning now to my regularly-scheduled anti-DEI self:
So, readers, how was my wokester impression? Does it contain any valid ideas, and in any case how accurately does it represent actual woke ideology so it might serve as a credible sparring partner for testing counter arguments?