A sinister feature of the Diversity/Equity/Inclusion “good discrimination” conspiracy is that the participants know that what they are doing is unconstitutional in spirit, illegal in practice, divisive and unfair by traditional American values, and they go forward with it anyway until they are caught. Then they deny that they were doing what they were doing, change their policies, at least ostensibly, and wait for the next opportunity while other organization pursue their DEI schemes.
The idea is to overwhelm the opposition—that is, those who believe all discrimination on the basis of race, gender and ethnicity is unethical and that jobs, promotions, honors, advancements, privileges and admissions should be based on achievement and not subjective attempts at social engineering or compensatory reparations. Eventually, the strategy goes, “everybody does it” will kick in, and fighting the new social norm will be futile.
The latest institution completely corrupted by political bias to be caught playing DEI games is the august American Bar Association. As revealed by Paul Caron’s Tax Prof Blog, a controversial requirement for law school accreditation, Standard 206, which contained flaming DEI mandates like…
“(b) A law school shall demonstrate by concrete actions a commitment to providing a supportive learning environment for all students by maintaining a faculty and staff that are diverse with respect to socioeconomic background and personal experience. A supportive learning environment is one that promotes professionalism, mutual respect, and belonging for everyone in the law school community.”
…is being revised to “align the standards with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision eliminating race-based admissions.” The former DEI edict will be renamed “Access to Legal Education and the Profession” instead of the former “Diversity and Inclusion.”
This occurred because attorneys general from 21 states—the relatively sane ones—“urged” the council in a June letter to eliminate the DEI requirements in Standard 206 to comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling, that is, to stop requiring law schools to violate the constitutional rights of whites and Asians.
This the ABA did, but only because its leadership knew its new standards were woke but illegal, and knew it was caught. The ABA was just trying to bully law schools into progressive lock-step for as long as they could. Thus the largest legal association pivoted to a REVISED Memorandum on Recommended Revisions for Notice and Comment: Standard 206 and 405, but not before 19 AGs from proto-totalitarian states, led by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, signed a letter calling on the American Bar Association, Fortune 100 CEOs and other organizations to keep illegally discriminating, or in their words, retain “their commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion.”
So the Forces of Darkness lost this one. But many more agents of “good discrimination” have yet to be whacked, and more are popping up every day.
Ethics Alarms 
We need to start using the correct term when discussing “Diversity/Equity/Inclusion”.The correct term is “Diversity/Inclusion/Equity” D.I.E. because you cannot have Equity without first having Inclusion.Here is what AI thought of my suggestion:Here’s why this sequence makes sense:
Diversity comes first: This is about having a variety of people with different backgrounds, experiences, and characteristics.
Inclusion follows: Once you have diversity, you need to ensure that all these diverse individuals feel welcome, valued, and able to participate fully.
Equity is the ultimate goal: Only when people are truly included can you work towards ensuring fair treatment, access, and opportunities for all.
The Logical Progression Diversity → Inclusion → Equity
Diversity without inclusion can lead to tokenism or surface-level representation.
Inclusion without equity can result in people being present but not having equal opportunities or treatment.
Equity is difficult to achieve without first ensuring diversity and inclusion.
Potential Benefits of Reordering Reordering the acronym to DIE (Diversity, Inclusion, Equity) could:
Help organizations and individuals understand the sequential nature of these goals
Better reflect the process of creating a truly equitable environment
Emphasize the importance of inclusion as a crucial step between diversity and equity
I especially like how AI recognizes that the current usage of “Diversity without inclusion can lead to tokenism or surface-level representation” which is what DEI seems to be attempting to accomplish other than the power grab.
Isn’t it the height of neo-colonial attitudes to suggest that white institutions should be so paternalistic to believe that minorities need enforced protections through DEI.
I have yet to see minority dominated institutions call for diversity in its ranks; so do they know something about diversity and inclusion that majority dominated institutions do not or are these minority dominated institutions purposely prevented from diversity goals to keep them in a second class position?
Just a thought
So funny that within my lifetime, pro sports teams have gone from having a token black guy on the team to having token white guys on the team.
Chris Marschner, your comment made me think that DEI is just a continuation of the White Man’s Burden in its efforts to civilize the non-white races.
I don’t think progressives would take kindly to that characterization.
-Jut
I just thought it might be instructive to use the verbiage of the Left to deconstruct the entire premise of DEI.
The question of whether the imposition of DEI is an extension of the white mans burden or an example of minority privilege has yet to be determined.
Saw a new (to me) alphabet soup – DEIB – Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and…wait for it…Belonging! Here’s how one website defines them: (bold italics are my highlights)
https://www.aihr.com/blog/diversity-equity-inclusion-belonging-deib/
Two, of several, observations:
This is the first time that I’ve noticed that diversity is purely a function of demographics (as some of us would say, “innate characteristics”) . Which explains why diversity of thought is never part of the “Diversity” definition.
By adding “Belonging” to the alphabet soup, there is now a criterion that is based on feelz and, by definition, cannot be objectively evaluated. This plays to the ‘liberal logic of’ “How can you argue with how someone “feels”?” That would be just as crazy as saying that a man who identifies as a “woman” can’t be a woman just because he “feels” that he’s a woman – how can you argue against his feelings?
Oy vey!
Since DEI is actually Discrimination, Exclusion and Indoctrination, what does the B stand for in DEIB?
Bigotry?
-Jut
The belonging part and feeling accepted reminded me of this exchange from Raising Arizona:
Policeman: Do you have any disgruntled employees?
Nathan Arizona Sr.: Hell, they’re all disgruntled. I ain’t running no damn daisy farm. My motto is “Do it my way or watch your butt!”
Policeman: Well, do you think any of them could’ve done it?
Nathan Arizona Sr.: Oh, don’t make me laugh. Without my say-so they wouldn’t piss with their pants on fire.
OH! How times have changed!
-Jut
Well, that’s right, ¿no? DIE initiatives are directed at the purported victim, with the accused’s intentions rendered irrelevant or insidious. Jack discussed this in the linked post from last week, where Michael Eric Dyson simply lambasted Rep. Nancy Mace as a racist because she mispronounced Kamala Harris’s name. Here is the link:
https://ethicsalarms.com/2024/08/17/note-to-cnns-race-baiters-there-are-so-so-many-reasons-not-to-respect-kamala-harris-stop-attributing-it-to-her-race/
The racist accusation is perfect. There is no defense. Once accused, the accused must simply accept as fact and must atone. The problem, though, there is no acceptable atonement. Even if you “love Big Brother” or “love Big Race” you can never purge yourself. The goal post will move without notice. Isn’t that he point of progressivism? Once the society atones for its past errors, the next issue will present itself, and it will tell two friends, who will tell their two friends, etc.
jvb
One problem is that when progressives use the term ‘equity’ they mean equality of outcomes, not opportunities. That is one reason DEI can be so toxic.
I do not think anyone here would disagree that everyone needs equal opportunity to succeed or fail.
It is paternalistic to assume that minorities are unable to succeed with out guaranteed equal outcomes. I think that is actually rather racist and I reject the idea.
Non-minorities generally accept that some people will succeed at a given task and some people will fail. I reject the idea that minorities should not be able to succeed or fail at similar tasks.
exactly.
The left is dominated by white supremacy ideology. It is the only explanation for needed DIE programs after 50 years of affirmative action and equal rights. If you don’t accept that affirmative action and progressive social programs are destructive to minority groups, the only possibility you are left with is that people of European descent are superior in almost all respect to ‘browner’ people. We can seen this in movements to restrict access of white students to educational institutions, programs, and even spaces. If whites are present, there is no way the ‘browner’ students can compete. The ‘brownwashing’ of society and encouragement for violence and discrimination against whites is justified because no one else can succeed in the presence of such superior people. I mean, according to the left, every disease, every natural disaster or stress is less damaging to white people than anyone else! The left can’t accept the fact that they have destroyed minority education and instilled destructive values in the minority populations in the US. Their only explanation left is white supremacy.
Here is a one-minute long comment about wokeness by the PM of Singapore that is worth your time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LdabP7FLjE