• FaceDeer
    link
    fedilink
    -35 months ago

    So now DEI programs are only for people of colour?

    Why not just “disadvantaged people”? That takes race out of the equation entirely, and everyone is satisfied. Unless excluding disadvantaged people of specific races or genders or whatever is actually the point.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      45 months ago

      Extend to gender, ethnicity, LGBTQ, whatever…the key is the “systematically.” We can’t assess relative (dis)advantage at an individual level, but we can recognize it at a systemic level and develop programs that counter it systemically.

      • FaceDeer
        link
        fedilink
        -15 months ago

        “Because it’s easier” is not a good excuse for discrimination, IMO.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          55 months ago

          The choice is “help people from systematically disadvantaged groups” or “don’t.” I’d argue that the “don’t” would be the easier choice.

          • FaceDeer
            link
            fedilink
            -15 months ago

            No, that’s a false dichotomy, there are other choices. Such as “help disadvantaged people regardless of their genetics.” I reject the “but it’s too hard” argument. If racial discrimination or gender discrimination or discrimination based on orientation is wrong, then it’s wrong. Don’t put an asterisk on it with a list of types that it’s okay for.

              • FaceDeer
                link
                fedilink
                1
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                I already did that in the comment you’re responding to:

                Such as “help disadvantaged people regardless of their genetics.”

                Or two comments previous to this one:

                Why not just “disadvantaged people”? That takes race out of the equation entirely, and everyone is satisfied.

                How often do you need it repeated?