DEI and Disenfranchisement and Exclusion are two wings on the same bird. Both seek to control thought, speech and behavior. Universities are supposed to be a place for free thought, free expression, and open debate of ideas - not oath taking to some particular set of ideas or compelled speech.
DEI and Disenfranchisement and Exclusion are two wings on the same bird. Both seek to control thought, speech and behavior. Universities are supposed to be a place for free thought, free expression, and open debate of ideas - not oath taking to some particular set of ideas or compelled speech.
Not just who but also what. It's excluding a diverse set of opinions, it's excluding people that don't agree with the DEI creed and have the integrity not to lie by signing statements or writing performative narratives. It's excluding speech and research (and research results) that do not fit a narrative. We can't excuse a scheme that oppresses speech just because we disapprove of the speech. Take Will Moravits, who was effectively fired for just allowing an open debate on topics such as gender ideology and police brutality. (He was given a 185K settlement, btw.) In hiring, people are excluded by favoring certain demographics or by penalizing candidates who may not have had the same opportunities to engage in DEI activities due to their personal or professional circumstances. Evaluating DEI statements can be highly subjective - and it's an area ripe for people to be hired on ideology or other discriminatory factors - leading to tokenism. There are other problems, like virtue signaling and the focus on DEI at the expense of actual education. Not to mention the explosion of expense. The DEI office at UT Austin had 60 employees and spent 60 million per year, just for one example - that's about $1,200 per student per year.
DEI and Disenfranchisement and Exclusion are two wings on the same bird. Both seek to control thought, speech and behavior. Universities are supposed to be a place for free thought, free expression, and open debate of ideas - not oath taking to some particular set of ideas or compelled speech.
Who, exactly, do you believe that the concept of diversity, equity, and inclusion is disenfranchising and excluding?
Not just who but also what. It's excluding a diverse set of opinions, it's excluding people that don't agree with the DEI creed and have the integrity not to lie by signing statements or writing performative narratives. It's excluding speech and research (and research results) that do not fit a narrative. We can't excuse a scheme that oppresses speech just because we disapprove of the speech. Take Will Moravits, who was effectively fired for just allowing an open debate on topics such as gender ideology and police brutality. (He was given a 185K settlement, btw.) In hiring, people are excluded by favoring certain demographics or by penalizing candidates who may not have had the same opportunities to engage in DEI activities due to their personal or professional circumstances. Evaluating DEI statements can be highly subjective - and it's an area ripe for people to be hired on ideology or other discriminatory factors - leading to tokenism. There are other problems, like virtue signaling and the focus on DEI at the expense of actual education. Not to mention the explosion of expense. The DEI office at UT Austin had 60 employees and spent 60 million per year, just for one example - that's about $1,200 per student per year.