The DEI crowd might as well be wearing white hoods and burning a cross. To support DEI is to say specific groups do not have the necessary inborn intelligence to accomplish anything by hard work and study vis-a-vis other groups. I completely reject this racist trope.
Oh, I agree. But I find you too cautious. DEI doesn't "potentially" cause problems and it's not always "well-intentioned." DEI has caused, continues to cause, terrible problems. The sooner it goes, the better.
DEI creates a cultural storm with devastatingly divisive effects. Apt analogy. Yet, as morally intentioned as anyone might assume DEI theory and practitioners to be, imposing false categorical imperatives across complex individual diversity is to lie, as Nietzsche argued, “in a nonmoral way”. Categorically equating unequal (distinct) individuals broadly by race, and founding sweeping national policy on such reductivist lies, produces racist results. I think of LBJ’s Great Society and its oft-unrealized part in the dissolution of the black nuclear family unit (despite being more intact during Jim Crow).
Good article. Thank you for braving the anger of university faculty in your work. In the UK those people can be VERY passive/aggressive. Watch your back!
I do feel we need to even more granular in breaking down the practice and theory of DEI and to say it how it is. Authoritarian, vindictive, counterproductive, hypocritical etc. it would make our society unproductive, sterile, uncreative and perversely unequal.
I had not thought of DEI as intervention in a complex system, leading to unexpected outcomes due to not understanding the system, but it's a very good analogy. However, I do find it rather tiresome that critics of DEI need to add the obligatory phrase about the proponents being well intentioned. I don't think most of them are well intentioned, I think they are the usual mix of white people who don't intend to give up anything but pretend to be guilty instead because it's cost free, grifters out for what they can get (such as the rent-seeking DEI "consultants" exploiting corporate guilt), obnoxious people who enjoy making others miserable, and a few useful idiots who might believe the hustle on some level for reasons of their own. These leftist movements have been very efficient at extracting money out of corporate America and various institutions, as well as personal prestige for people who are otherwise unremarkable and have no talent at anything, which is what it's all about at the base of it. BLM is the most blatant example, their "leaders" have admitted quite openly that the grift was their whole point.
I've worked in the space of regenerating ecosystem function for a while. I think comparison with cloud seeding to pose the question, "how do we work with complexity effectively?" is absolutely spot on but would benefit from further exploration. In particular, since human society exists as a subset of ecosystem function, ecological structures and processes (and the means theough which we can restore, support and enhance their continued function) often offer relevant and accurate analogies not only for criticism of current reductionist efforts to manipulate system function (called "social engineering" here) but also and perhaps more crucially, to point the way toward the nature and type of interventions that could yield actual desirable results.
For example, cloud seeding occurs in functional ecosystems as a byproduct of mass transpiration by diverse photosynthesizing groundcover. The core concept is bioprecipitation, driven by ice-nucleating microbes that have a complex symbiotic lifecycle with photosynthesizing and respirating life. That ground cover also moderates and stabilizes conditions, ensuring that extreme events are less frequent, intense and durable, on one hand. On the other hand, this diverse living groundcover also restores the soil carbon sponge and enhances the land's ability to capture, store and release water slowly and steadily over time. Conversely, the technologically-reductionist seeding of clouds (especially with nano-particles that may act as pollutants) in the absence of restoring the soil carbon sponge is an expensive recipe for floods, erosion and paradoxically, even more drought by exposing land to sudden and drastic (SAD) influxes of precipitation that it is not prepared to handle due to its ecologically impoverished state, further disrupting rather than optimizing water cycle function.
That above example is just a drop in the bucket (pardon the pun). I would love to explore further and collaborate--either with the author or someone else willing to take a look at what our emerging ecological knowledge could provide-- as a follow up effort by way of analogy not only for critical but also constructive feedback indicating where we might "go from here." Please feel free to contact me if interested.
Your comment reminds me of the work I'm doing now in my own research and the way it's traced back to...local understand and learning of environmental and ecological knowledges and practice. It's as if...if we want to be effective, it's not enough to blanket things as we've seen in the social engineering of DEI. That may seem obvious, but from an engineering matriculation POV, it's not. People aren't taught to engineer in systems and those who are have been directed to consulting or product life cycle analysis. While nothing is wrong with that, what is wrong, I've noticed is that being what the social aspect of engineering reduced to that. Systems thinking is not a new concept, but we act like it is.
One of the effects of DEI will be the lost of trust in certain professionals. Would you see a surgeon who received his degree due to DEI? Would the minority surgeon who made it on his own be looked at with suspicion?
Constructive feedback: I like your pointing out unintended consequences (although I don’t think the progenitors of DIE are that kind hearted, I agree some people are well meaning but didn’t “think it through”) but instead of the weather in Oman, how about using Facebook and it’s “social engineering” aspects? Also all humans have tried to learn about and control their environment- starting with mitigating negative effects, so I don’t think the analogy with Mao and Stalin is correct. However, not knowing how things like agriculture really work (it’s not just labor, it’s also knowing what to do and when and why, and know how to shift when the environment shifts) is one of the reasons that Marxism/communism failed. They thought let’s take the land away from the landowners and redistribute it and any dummy can put their back to the labor of farming and it just that simple. Nope. Millions starved. Many landowners were farmers, not just landlords. And even some landlords were probably knowledgeable about agriculture, or maybe even retired successful farmers leasing their land to other farmers or passing it down to their farming kids. Such is life in an open society that doesn’t attempt TOO much control. Otherwise good article, especially in the middle when you take on DIE directly- it’s intentions vs its unintentional effects.
Hey, I'm not sure the Marxism/communism analogy to agriculture is correct. Do you have a clear example or did you just mean the ideology itself? We still see itself impact in different places today. When you mentioned agriculture, it was making me think of Feudalism and its proliferation of land enclosure.
My problem with DEI is that they will always "find" problems, because their entire existence depends on the problem existing. They need the problem to justify all that bureaucracy and administratives that outnumber the actual workers. Eric Hoffer — 'Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.'
Thank you for this article, my heart, instinct has told me DEI is complete and utter BS, and at its heart it is really quite racist and prejudicial and at its least it is unnecessarily divisive. You have spoken my mind with much clarity thank you!
The DEI crowd might as well be wearing white hoods and burning a cross. To support DEI is to say specific groups do not have the necessary inborn intelligence to accomplish anything by hard work and study vis-a-vis other groups. I completely reject this racist trope.
Oh, I agree. But I find you too cautious. DEI doesn't "potentially" cause problems and it's not always "well-intentioned." DEI has caused, continues to cause, terrible problems. The sooner it goes, the better.
This is well done. The truth doesn't require the double-speak and deceptive jargon of the DEI crowd. Elegant simplicity is best.
DEI creates a cultural storm with devastatingly divisive effects. Apt analogy. Yet, as morally intentioned as anyone might assume DEI theory and practitioners to be, imposing false categorical imperatives across complex individual diversity is to lie, as Nietzsche argued, “in a nonmoral way”. Categorically equating unequal (distinct) individuals broadly by race, and founding sweeping national policy on such reductivist lies, produces racist results. I think of LBJ’s Great Society and its oft-unrealized part in the dissolution of the black nuclear family unit (despite being more intact during Jim Crow).
Good article. Thank you for braving the anger of university faculty in your work. In the UK those people can be VERY passive/aggressive. Watch your back!
I do feel we need to even more granular in breaking down the practice and theory of DEI and to say it how it is. Authoritarian, vindictive, counterproductive, hypocritical etc. it would make our society unproductive, sterile, uncreative and perversely unequal.
I had not thought of DEI as intervention in a complex system, leading to unexpected outcomes due to not understanding the system, but it's a very good analogy. However, I do find it rather tiresome that critics of DEI need to add the obligatory phrase about the proponents being well intentioned. I don't think most of them are well intentioned, I think they are the usual mix of white people who don't intend to give up anything but pretend to be guilty instead because it's cost free, grifters out for what they can get (such as the rent-seeking DEI "consultants" exploiting corporate guilt), obnoxious people who enjoy making others miserable, and a few useful idiots who might believe the hustle on some level for reasons of their own. These leftist movements have been very efficient at extracting money out of corporate America and various institutions, as well as personal prestige for people who are otherwise unremarkable and have no talent at anything, which is what it's all about at the base of it. BLM is the most blatant example, their "leaders" have admitted quite openly that the grift was their whole point.
I've worked in the space of regenerating ecosystem function for a while. I think comparison with cloud seeding to pose the question, "how do we work with complexity effectively?" is absolutely spot on but would benefit from further exploration. In particular, since human society exists as a subset of ecosystem function, ecological structures and processes (and the means theough which we can restore, support and enhance their continued function) often offer relevant and accurate analogies not only for criticism of current reductionist efforts to manipulate system function (called "social engineering" here) but also and perhaps more crucially, to point the way toward the nature and type of interventions that could yield actual desirable results.
For example, cloud seeding occurs in functional ecosystems as a byproduct of mass transpiration by diverse photosynthesizing groundcover. The core concept is bioprecipitation, driven by ice-nucleating microbes that have a complex symbiotic lifecycle with photosynthesizing and respirating life. That ground cover also moderates and stabilizes conditions, ensuring that extreme events are less frequent, intense and durable, on one hand. On the other hand, this diverse living groundcover also restores the soil carbon sponge and enhances the land's ability to capture, store and release water slowly and steadily over time. Conversely, the technologically-reductionist seeding of clouds (especially with nano-particles that may act as pollutants) in the absence of restoring the soil carbon sponge is an expensive recipe for floods, erosion and paradoxically, even more drought by exposing land to sudden and drastic (SAD) influxes of precipitation that it is not prepared to handle due to its ecologically impoverished state, further disrupting rather than optimizing water cycle function.
That above example is just a drop in the bucket (pardon the pun). I would love to explore further and collaborate--either with the author or someone else willing to take a look at what our emerging ecological knowledge could provide-- as a follow up effort by way of analogy not only for critical but also constructive feedback indicating where we might "go from here." Please feel free to contact me if interested.
Your comment reminds me of the work I'm doing now in my own research and the way it's traced back to...local understand and learning of environmental and ecological knowledges and practice. It's as if...if we want to be effective, it's not enough to blanket things as we've seen in the social engineering of DEI. That may seem obvious, but from an engineering matriculation POV, it's not. People aren't taught to engineer in systems and those who are have been directed to consulting or product life cycle analysis. While nothing is wrong with that, what is wrong, I've noticed is that being what the social aspect of engineering reduced to that. Systems thinking is not a new concept, but we act like it is.
I'd be curious to learn more about your work / findings
This is a wonderfully thoughtful, objective and rational presentation of the current social and political moment. And a comfort to read.
This is excellent.
One of the effects of DEI will be the lost of trust in certain professionals. Would you see a surgeon who received his degree due to DEI? Would the minority surgeon who made it on his own be looked at with suspicion?
Well-stated - a pleasure to read and share.
Constructive feedback: I like your pointing out unintended consequences (although I don’t think the progenitors of DIE are that kind hearted, I agree some people are well meaning but didn’t “think it through”) but instead of the weather in Oman, how about using Facebook and it’s “social engineering” aspects? Also all humans have tried to learn about and control their environment- starting with mitigating negative effects, so I don’t think the analogy with Mao and Stalin is correct. However, not knowing how things like agriculture really work (it’s not just labor, it’s also knowing what to do and when and why, and know how to shift when the environment shifts) is one of the reasons that Marxism/communism failed. They thought let’s take the land away from the landowners and redistribute it and any dummy can put their back to the labor of farming and it just that simple. Nope. Millions starved. Many landowners were farmers, not just landlords. And even some landlords were probably knowledgeable about agriculture, or maybe even retired successful farmers leasing their land to other farmers or passing it down to their farming kids. Such is life in an open society that doesn’t attempt TOO much control. Otherwise good article, especially in the middle when you take on DIE directly- it’s intentions vs its unintentional effects.
Hey, I'm not sure the Marxism/communism analogy to agriculture is correct. Do you have a clear example or did you just mean the ideology itself? We still see itself impact in different places today. When you mentioned agriculture, it was making me think of Feudalism and its proliferation of land enclosure.
If I understand your question correctly, I meant the ideology itself.
100%.
My problem with DEI is that they will always "find" problems, because their entire existence depends on the problem existing. They need the problem to justify all that bureaucracy and administratives that outnumber the actual workers. Eric Hoffer — 'Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.'
Thank you for this article, my heart, instinct has told me DEI is complete and utter BS, and at its heart it is really quite racist and prejudicial and at its least it is unnecessarily divisive. You have spoken my mind with much clarity thank you!
Beautifully written and well argued!