Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, I am a Caucasian Australian male. But I don't feel actively discriminated against. Maybe that is because I'm retired and no longer have to compete in the jobmarket. However, I know it's harder for young blokes today because they have to compete not only with females but must also to deal with whatever unfair treatment they may get because of DEI. Being out of the workforce for the last 12 years, I'm not in a position to judge how much of an issue DEI is in terms of making things harder for white males than they should be. I guess it would explain some of the attraction young men feel to radical right-wing fringe groups who promise to redress their grievances.

Like you, I that merit should be the decisive factor. I agree with equal oppotunity but I don't agree with promotion on the basis of belonging to some minority. As you say, it must be first and foremost about qualifications and experience.

[Sy Borg]

Yes, I am a Caucasian Australian male. But I don't feel actively discriminated against. Maybe that is because I'm retired and no longer have to compete in the jobmarket. However, I know it's harder for young blokes today because they have to compete not only with females but must also to deal with whatever unfair treatment they may get because of DEI. Being out of the workforce for the last 12 years, I'm not in a position to judge how much of an issue DEI is in terms of making things harder for white males than they should be. I guess it would explain some of the attraction young men feel to radical right-wing fringe groups who promise to redress their grievances.

Like you, I that merit should be the decisive factor. I agree with equal oppotunity but I don't agree with promotion on the basis of belonging to some minority. As you say, it must be first and foremost about qualifications and experience.

I have a young white male relative and, while he is fine, most of his white male friends are struggling. It's sad to see.

Personally, I am dead against discrimination on the basis of race, beliefs, gender or sexuality. A human is a human. Is the person the best for the position? That apparently no longer matters to large box-ticking organisations with quotas.

[LuckyR]

How about Claudine Gay as an unqualified appointment? Her output is nowhere near what it should have been for a person in that position. Further, her doctorate was largely plagiarised - and the plagiarism is worse than reported. She based a lot of the work on the work of a single former colleague, Dr Carol Swain, who had left her tenured post due to mistreatment.

Would Claudine Gay have been given the position if not a female black activist? Not a chance.

Unqualified? You're clearly unfamiliar with how Harvard does things.

Let's take a look. When Dr Gay was selected to the presidency of the university, she was the Dean of the Harvard school of arts and sciences (the largest of the ten schools at Harvard) for five years and had been the immediate past Dean of the school of social sciences for three. So her experience was actually in line with the sort of qualifications of prior Presidents of Harvard. As to the "plagerism" of her doctoral dissertation, that allegation was created more than a year after the selection process, so while interesting in certain contexts, is irrelevant to the issue of her selection (what we're discussing). In fact her dissertation was awarded the Toppan prize for the best dissertation in the political science dept. So her CV was definitely in the "qualified" category.

Of course retrospectively her selection is open to much criticism (hindsight being 20/20), and she may have not been the "best" candidate (whatever that is), but her worst crime was her handling of the Hamas crisis, but why is she the lightning rod for that instead of the presidents of MIT (a Hispanic man at the post long before DEI was a thing) or of the University of Pennsylvania, all of whom were singled out for criticism?

Even if Harvard was seeking a Black activist specifically for the presidency, doesn't make Dr Gay unqualified for the position. Let's be honest, 599 of the 600 candidates weren't going to get the appointment regardless, it's not necessary to fabricate conspiracy theories in an attempt to reverse engineer the details of the selection process. That would be equivalent to supposing that if they'd selected a white man, that he was "unqualified" because obviously Harvard is an Old Boys Club.

[Sy Borg]

Gay was vastly less qualified than other candidates. As for plagiarism, let's hear it from one of those she plagiarised, Dr Carol Swain:

As they say, universities were once run by people with sharp minds, now they are run by those with sharp elbows.

[Pattern-chaser]

It's very simple. Merit selection. The most experiences, qualified and skilled person for the job. Subsidised traineeships for young Aboriginal workers are useful bridges for but, that too, should be competitive and awarded on merit. That is, those who who the most potential.

In a society that has been meritocratic in the long term, I think it would be difficult to shape a counter-argument. However, in the situation where a society has operated — again, in the long term — a system that significantly disadvantaged some sections of its citizens, in favour of others, there is a case to be considered. And that is what the argument here is about, isn't it?

If sections of the community have been disadvantaged in the long term, over many *generations*, a simple move to meritocracy might not be sufficient. If sub-communities have been disadvantaged over such a long period, the disadvantages, and the corresponding advantages or privileges, can become ingrained. For example, perhaps some sub-community has been poorly educated compared with others, that must have an effect on their possible future achievements. They, as a group, have been disadvantaged within their society by the non-meritocratic system.

The question seems to come down to this, something we have debated here a few times already: is so-called affirmative action justified, and if it is, is that fair or just?

I think this is a fair summary. () So let's be honest about this topic, whose real title is "Can affirmative action be justified?", yes?

[Fried Egg]

The question seems to come down to this, something we have debated here a few times already: is so-called affirmative action justified, and if it is, is that fair or just?

I think this is a fair summary. () So let's be honest about this topic, whose real title is "Can affirmative action be justified?", yes?

Although affirmative is certainly a part of DEI, it is not all that it is about. "Inclusion", for instance, has nothing to do with affirmative action. Ultimately it is an obsession with disparities between different group identities and trying to eliminate those disparities (affirmative action being just one of the tools in the tool box). Accepting the DEI program means accepting the paradigm of its advocates and seeing society through the same lens as they do. I'm not quibbling over it's methods, I reject the very way they want us to see the world.

[LuckyR]

It's very simple. Merit selection. The most experiences, qualified and skilled person for the job. Subsidised traineeships for young Aboriginal workers are useful bridges for but, that too, should be competitive and awarded on merit. That is, those who who the most potential.

In a society that has been meritocratic in the long term, I think it would be difficult to shape a counter-argument. However, in the situation where a society has operated — again, in the long term — a system that significantly disadvantaged some sections of its citizens, in favour of others, there is a case to be considered. And that is what the argument here is about, isn't it?

If sections of the community have been disadvantaged in the long term, over many *generations*, a simple move to meritocracy might not be sufficient. If sub-communities have been disadvantaged over such a long period, the disadvantages, and the corresponding advantages or privileges, can become ingrained. For example, perhaps some sub-community has been poorly educated compared with others, that must have an effect on their possible future achievements. They, as a group, have been disadvantaged within their society by the non-meritocratic system.

The question seems to come down to this, something we have debated here a few times already: is so-called affirmative action justified, and if it is, is that fair or just?

I think this is a fair summary. () So let's be honest about this topic, whose real title is "Can affirmative action be justified?", yes?

An excellent summary. I agree with the notion that truly "unqualified" candidates should never be selected (using the definition of the term of "not meeting the qualification criteria"). However in common discussion "unqualified" is used on occasion to describe "not the most qualified", which of course is misleading.

Most significant positions have a two step selection process. The first step consists of listing the minimum qualifications. These are purely objective criteria such as types of education, experience, test scores etc. Candidates that don't meet them are UNQUALIFIED and are essentially never considered for the position.

The second step typically includes interviews and are weighted toward subjective criteria. The error many make is assuming that merely having higher levels at step 1 makes candidates "better" and thus deserving of the position whereas in reality step 1 defines the floor, not the ceiling and the selection (among all of the QUALIFIED candidates) occurs at step 2 and is based (mostly) on subjective criteria.

Thus retrospectively calculating the relative levels of the objective criteria at step 1 among selected and unselected candidates is a mistake that misses why the successful candidates were selected.

[Pattern-chaser]

The question seems to come down to this, something we have debated here a few times already: is so-called affirmative action justified, and if it is, is that fair or just?

I think this is a fair summary. () So let's be honest about this topic, whose real title is "Can affirmative action be justified?", yes?

Although affirmative is certainly a part of DEI, it is not all that it is about. "Inclusion", for instance, has nothing to do with affirmative action. Ultimately it is an obsession with disparities between different group identities and trying to eliminate those disparities (affirmative action being just one of the tools in the tool box). Accepting the DEI program means accepting the paradigm of its advocates and seeing society through the same lens as they do. I'm not quibbling over it's methods, I reject the very way they want us to see the world.

Well, this topic *is* in the politics section — fair enough. But the underlying theme here is Libertarian politics, and your dislike for anything else. The way you describe inclusion, for example, seems to show a deeply-felt, maybe emotional, dislike. We might just as well debate the qualities of Libertarian versus 'Liberal' politics, no? At least then it would be clear what the issues are...?

[Sculptor1]

This is a sign of the degradation of academic institutions. Once, the brief was (ostensibly) to teach people to think critically. Now critical thinking in academia is forbidden; one must follow the script or be "cancelled".

This is so predictable/
It's the right wing that is doing all the cancelling.
How can you allow yourself to be so manipulated?

LOL

[Sculptor1]

Gay was vastly less qualified than other candidates. As for plagiarism, let's hear it from one of those she plagiarised, Dr Carol Swain:

As they say, universities were once run by people with sharp minds, now they are run by those with sharp elbows.

JP is a man of limited intelligence. I suppose it is predicatbale that you would post a vid with his face on it??

[Sy Borg]

Gay was vastly less qualified than other candidates. As for plagiarism, let's hear it from one of those she plagiarised, Dr Carol Swain:

As they say, universities were once run by people with sharp minds, now they are run by those with sharp elbows.

JP is a man of limited intelligence. I suppose it is predicatbale that you would post a vid with his face on it??

I note no comment about Dr Swain. Peterson is a smart man, clearly more intelligent than you are, though that's a modest attainment. He can, at least, construct arguments without always falling back on ad hominems. I don't play source games. Even a child can be right. I assess material because I am not an ideologue, but a pragmatist. I know about JP's unreliability but he's also not always wrong, and he has done some great work helping young males.

It's clear that Gay was 1. a serial plagiarist with modest output, 2. political appointment ad 3. And-Semitic. Some people think all of that is fine, just as long as the person is from a "minority".

Perhaps you should think about all the ways you are being duped by institutions and corporations?

[Mounce574]

I prefer to believe that I am an individual capable of forming my own thoughts. What advantages do minorities already have? Affirmative action, DEI, 250 free points added to their SAT scores, education grants based on race, and completely unbalanced system of hiring that has caused issues like the Titan submarine catastrophe where the vessel going to view the Titanic caused the deaths of several people. The people who built the submarine were not qualified to do the work. And then there is the Boeing issue where all 737s were grounded because of an issue with a electrical panel breaking open during flight. BOTH employed people using DEI.

The mention of right wing doing all the canceling is not correct. The Department of Homeland Security was created to protect America from terrorist threats after 9/11 Biden uses it to investigate white parents who question why critical race theory is being forced on their children. US Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that these parents are domestic terrorists. Leftists embrace wokeism, conservatives consider it an insult. This ideology tells black people that they are too stupid to rise above something that happened to somebody who is no longer alive today. Instead of working to earn the position they want, they just have to mark a box on a page stating they are not white.

On the topic of plagiarism the book "Roots" by Alex Haley was plagiarised from Harold Courlander's "The African." That was a $625,000 court case.. Gay being a minority was also singling out another group of minorities. That alone made her unqualified for her position because she was violating another person's right to education free of racism. She didn't view people as a minority, she viewed them as White- White can be someone with Irish, Italian, Jew, Greek, and English heritage. Skin color, gender, religion should never be a reason to singled out or given more privilege than other people.

[Fried Egg]

The question seems to come down to this, something we have debated here a few times already: is so-called affirmative action justified, and if it is, is that fair or just?

I think this is a fair summary. () So let's be honest about this topic, whose real title is "Can affirmative action be justified?", yes?

Although affirmative is certainly a part of DEI, it is not all that it is about. "Inclusion", for instance, has nothing to do with affirmative action. Ultimately it is an obsession with disparities between different group identities and trying to eliminate those disparities (affirmative action being just one of the tools in the tool box). Accepting the DEI program means accepting the paradigm of its advocates and seeing society through the same lens as they do. I'm not quibbling over it's methods, I reject the very way they want us to see the world.

Well, this topic *is* in the politics section — fair enough. But the underlying theme here is Libertarian politics, and your dislike for anything else. The way you describe inclusion, for example, seems to show a deeply-felt, maybe emotional, dislike. We might just as well debate the qualities of Libertarian versus 'Liberal' politics, no? At least then it would be clear what the issues are...?

I don't really understand why you want to frame the discussion that way. DEI (and the concept of critical justice that it rests on) is perhaps best seen as a new brand of progressivism (or modern liberal politics) but it is at odds with a more traditional, older form of liberal politics. Indeed, it is quite at odds with the kind of society even someone like Martin Luther King advocated for (and he was no libertarian).

Some might argue for government intervention against private companies to prevent them implementing DEI programs (which is clearly un-libertarian). The point is this subject is not about whether you support government intervention into the labour markets. My OP in this thread was an attack on the very concept of DEI, whether it be programs instigated by government or companies in the private sector. Don't try to turn this discussion into something that it is not.

[Pattern-chaser]

What advantages do minorities already have? Affirmative action, DEI, 250 free points added to their SAT scores, education grants based on race...

Isn't the whole point of such interventions that minorities *don't have* the "advantages" that others do, and could do with a helping-hand?

[Pattern-chaser]

Don't try to turn this discussion into something that it is not.

OK, my mistake.

DEI (and the concept of critical justice that it rests on) is perhaps best seen as a new brand of progressivism (or modern liberal politics) but it is at odds with a more traditional, older form of liberal politics. Indeed, it is quite at odds with the kind of society even someone like Martin Luther King advocated for (and he was no libertarian).

Some might argue for government intervention against private companies to prevent them implementing DEI programs (which is clearly un-libertarian). The point is this subject is not about whether you support government intervention into the labour markets. My OP in this thread was an attack on the very concept of DEI, whether it be programs instigated by government or companies in the private sector.

I still don't see what is so *very* wrong about giving those who have been subjected to long-term disadvantage a bit of a helping hand, to help them recover...?