Unbelievable.
That idiocy was posted by a lawyer, former law dean and law professor. How is this possible?
It is like saying that if you believe the French Revolution was a human and political disaster, you should have to explain why you object to each section of “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité.” It is like saying that it’s a cop-out to claim that “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be Free” is a hateful call for the eradication of Israel, unless you explain: “What’s so bad about starting at the river? What’s so wrong about going to the seashore? What do you find so objectionable about freedom?”
Whoever thinks this meme is a devastating rebuttal of opposition to DEI as a social, employment, and organizational policy doesn’t comprehend a foundational principle of language, which is that words in particular contexts and combinations often mean something entirely different from what the words mean individually and in a vacuum.
Sure, diversity can be nice, but not as an enforced value, and not in every context. I don’t see anyone advocating more racially diverse NBA teams, for example. Most of the time diversity isn’t even an ethical value, just a feature that may or may not have benefits to a group. Equity, the only concept of the three that I see on my wall as one of the ethical values, means fairness. But fairness is extremely subjective, making it one of the more tricky ethical values, and when it is used as it is used in the context of the DEI Division of The Great Stupid, what it means is “equal outcomes for all.” That is Marxist Cloud Cuckoo Land garbage. Life doesn’t, shouldn’t and can’t work like that. There are winners and losers; enterprise, talent, diligence, intelligence and skill matters, as well as luck. Trying to fight that fact of existence is a fool’s errand, or, more often a con artist’s scam.
“Inclusion” is the weird one: what it means in context of the DEI movement is that all exclusion is malign and sinister, the result of deliberate discrimination on the basis of invidious factors. False.
Someone should be included when they have the requisite characteristics to be included. For example, illegal aliens have no business being included in the population of the United States and deriving the benefits such inclusion warrants. Almost all DEI believers refuse to accept that last statement. [Incidentally, I scored a minor victory with my Trump Deranged relative and her knee-jerk support of the Democratic Party yesterday. She started complaining about some Trump policy involving “migrants,” and I cut her off, saying, “Don’t insult my intelligence by using that dishonest term” and she immediately said, “You’re right! I’m sorry! They’re not migrants, they are illegal immigrants, and I should not use terms designed to confuse them with legal immigrants!”] There is nothing inherently virtuous or desirable about automatic inclusion.
DEI, however, has metastasized into something far more damaging and nauseating than the three individual concepts it appropriated in order to support intellectually indefensible arguments like that statement above. The phenomenon is similar to how “Black Lives Matter” got astonishing mileage out of its title, so if you opposed the organization and movement, you were automatically found guilty of not thinking black lives matter. Clever!
And persuasive, if one has the IQ of a kumquat.
Here is what Diversity, Equity and Inclusion mean when they are combined into “DEI”: Brown University Medical School openly gives “diversity, equity, and inclusion” a higher priority than “excellent clinical skills” in its promotion criteria for its faculty. Brilliant! That’s going to raise the school’s effectiveness in teaching doctors for sure, as well as doing wonders for the prestige of a Brown M.D.
The criteria are posted on Brown’s website. They list a “demonstrated commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion” as a “major criterion” for all positions within the Department of Medicine. Clinical skills only count as a “minor criterion” for many roles…See?
So Brown is open about its giving DEI more weight than clinical skills for positions focused on research and classroom teaching. Other departments at Brown have implemented similar priorities. DEI, baby! The Brown psychiatry program says faculty will not be promoted unless they “demonstrate a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Participating in “anti-racism reading group,” will do the trick. Brown’s Department of Molecular Biology has also instituted its own DEI requirements for promotions, according to a 2024 report by Brown’s diversity office.
Doctors who reviewed the Med School’s criteria said that they reflect an unusually frank admission that merit is taking a back seat to DEI. Gee, ya think?
“This is as stark as it gets,” bemoaned Bob Cirincione, a Maryland orthopedic surgeon. The criteria “say what DEI in medical schools is all about. And it’s not about clinical performance.” Hector Chapa, a clinical professor at Texas A&M College of Medicine, said it was “difficult to comprehend” why clinical skills get less weight than DEI. “Clinical skills are of paramount importance and should be considered major criteria for any promotion.”
It is illegal for federally funded universities to discriminate based on race, but that is what DEI programs like that at Brown do, and are intended to do regardless of the rhetoric used to disguise it. Brown also runs a medical school fellowship that gives “underrepresented (URM) students” the chance to participate in clinical electives, as stated on a university webpage. When a reporter pointed out the exclusionary language, a university official insisted that the fellowship was open to all students and that the website’s language was just a mistake. Suuuure it was. The section about underrepresented students was quickly removed, though the program’s title of “Diversity in Medicine Visiting Student Scholarship” remained.
That’s the kind of thing those three little words mean when they are linked together.
And now, a song! Hit it, Nat!
Ethics Alarms 
Here’s how I might respond:
“I appreciate the emphasis on clarity in this point. To build on it, “diversity, equity, and inclusion” has also become a thought-terminating cliché, when the phrase is used to refer to specific measures taken with the stated intention of furthering those values.
It’s a motte-and-bailey phrase with two baked-in assumptions: that specific policies will increase diversity, equity, and inclusion, and that these policies have no significant drawbacks.
I support the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion. I may oppose some of the specific tradeoffs that people impose in the name of those values, if I believe they fail to accomplish their objectives or if I believe they carry drawbacks that threaten other important values. When I do, I will name those tradeoffs specifically. I will also attempt to find more constructive alternatives that can advance diversity, equity, and inclusion without creating the drawbacks people are concerned about.”
I’d like to see the response that gets.
It’s an excellent response, EC. Much better than. “Wow. You’re really an idiot.”
One issue is that Diversity, in the context of DEI, doesn’t actually mean diversity as the common English definition would have it. Even proponents of DEI routinely speak if diversity in terms that make no sense given its conventional meaning, such as by referring to individuals as being diverse or not diverse in their own right, or speaking of a population being a certain percentage “diverse”, a figure arrived at by dividing the number of “diverse” individuals by the total population.
In other words, Diversity as used in DEI means some people belong to desirable, favored groups (the “diverse”) while others belong to undesirable, disfavored groups. In other words, in the context of DEI, “Diversity” means discrimination, full stop. Every knows it, even its proponents, they just know not to speak of it in those terms.
A friend’s daughter recently reposted a brainless Facebook screed by someone named Durga McBroom:
“Some of what DEI is:
-ramps and sidewalk curb cuts-subtitles & captions (TV & phone)-family restrooms-changing tables in men’s restrooms-breast feeding/pumping stations & accommodations-floating paid holidays-pay equity & transparency-parental leave (time & pay)-coming back to a job after birthing a child-not having to just accept workplace harassment-work accommodations for a variety of disabilities-flexible work arrangements-size inclusive chairs and beds in medical facilities-belt extenders on planes-various food options for vegetarians/vegans/kosher/gluten-free/etc at medical facilities-non smoking areas/end of smoking indoors-being able to have medical professionals and your coworkers use your preferred name (not just queer people have those)-wellness programs and incentives-more relaxed & inclusive dress code policies-rooms to pray/meditate at work & other public places-employee recognition programs-employee/network resource groups-large print materials-materials in different languages-multiple religious options at hospitals-accessible bikes and public transit accommodations-businesses not becoming fully cashless-company-covered mental/behavioral health resources
“Some of What DEI isn’t:
-hiring an under qualified person for a job just because they’re a person of color-hiring based on race just to meet diversity goals (this is illegal)-a new fad or buzz word. DEI work has been going on for many many years, under different names.”
Some of what he says is DEI is desirable, Some weird, Some just wrong.
All of what he says isn’t DEI – is what they actually do.
Also, when the list is all jumbled together like that it’s really hard to see just what all they’re talking about.
I notice he puts sidewalk cuts and ramps first, because those are probably his strongest items. However, I doubt many people think of those as ‘diversity’ accommodations, rather that handicap access accommodations (and they are, what, 40+ years old?).
Some of the weirder stuff is all jumbled in, where it’s hard to see. I tend to think that is not an accident. If all these stood alone, there could be an actual list. And if it’s WordPress that’s jumbling it, I will stand corrected.
Sorry, that was WordPress reformatting the list.
I will go ahead and call out “Equity” as something I do indeed oppose.
I believe the word was chosen specifically because is sounds similar to “Equality” which is something lauded in the popular culture and even enshrined in the founding documents. In this way people are deceptively predisposed to be favorably inclined towards it or even tricked into thinking they support it because it’s really the concept of “Equality” that they support and hopefully no one actually looks up how “Equity” is used in this context.
INSTEAD of Equality, “Equity” is the concept of giving things to people because they “need” it (without much thought given to the concept of how “need” is actually determined) to achieve equal results.
It is through the word “Equity” that its proponents are trying to Trojan Horse the concepts of Marxism/Socialism/Communism into the popular culture as a GOOD THING™ while trying their level best not to explain it in detail for the masses.
So . . . in this context, “Equity” equals Marxism, and I will proudly say that I don’t like it.
But “Equality” (meaning: treating all people alike, without regard for their innate characteristics) is something I definitely DO like.
–Dwayne
P.S. I could shoot down “Diversity” and “Inclusion” much the same way, but in reality they both just come down to how DEI in practice does the opposite of what the words “Diversity” and “Inclusion” actually mean by being completely intolerant of dissent and actively excluding the disfavored. It’s just Discrimination with prettier-sounding names.
Possibly the worst elements of DEI are the oft reported mandatory classes and seminars that pit people against one another by labeling them as victims and oppressors, and the requirement that each employee confess his or her original sin of racism or phobia. Sadly, this has filtered down to elementary schools where our most innocent are being brain washed. Congress needs to codify the nullification of this abomination.
“Possibly the worst elements of DEI are the oft reported mandatory classes and seminars“
Whose obscenely overpriced fees are paid for by………….?
PWS