A genuine, respected and dear friend re-posted this on Facebook:
Dr. Kristina Rizzotto created that thing; she is apparently a professional musician, so her doctorate isn’t in philosophy, public policy, law, or, clearly, linguistics. Shut up and play, Kristina.
Like Popeye, that was all I could stands ‘cuz I can’t stands no more, and I finally posted, after a good ten minutes of self-wrestling, this in response:
“Ugh. I don’t even want to wade into this, but come on. DEI is not the equivalent of three ethical virtues in a vacuum, and sure, diversity is nice; not not necessary or necessarily beneficial: the NBA doesn’t seek out white and Asian players to make it more “diverse,” because diversity doesn’t win basketball games. “Equity” means fairness, but the nation is built on equality of opportunity, not guaranteed equality of results, which is what “equity” means in the context of DEI. “Inclusion” is also nice, if it means the absence of deliberate arbitrary exclusion. If it means inclusion for the sake of inclusion, who said that’s virtuous or sensible? Who made that rule?
“Dr. Kristina is ducking the issue with intellectual dishonesty. Inclusion should be based on merit. Excluding anyone who would qualify for inclusion on merit, based on their sex, ethnicity, skin color, sexual orientation or physical characteristics is per se bias and illegal discrimination, and playing word games to deceive the inattentive and gullible into thinking otherwise is unconscionable. Similarly, black lives matter, but Black Lives Matter is a racist movement and a scam organization. Do better, Dr.”
I’m sure I’ll regret it.
Ethics Alarms 
Yup, you’ll pay for that. But it was a brilliant takedown.
Do keep us posted.
Give your wonderful pup a buttscratch for me.
You stand a post, Jack, which is appreciated by many.
PWS
[from your host: Well, fool me twice, shame on me! AF actually assured me he was through with his ambush posts, and I, naturally projecting my own values on others, took him at is word.
I’m such an idiot.
Jack]
5…4…3…2…
Gone!
Well, one good point by A Friend — avoid a rush to judgment, as in “Now THIS is legitimate guilt by association”.
But A Friend is wrong about allowance of liberal comments here. I’ve made a few myself, sometimes sincere (I’m bi-polar when it comes to politics), sometimes playing the role of a progressive just to provoke an argument and force a stronger defense of a position. So far, I’m still here.
As to that FB post, the demand to be specific is rather ironic since neither DEI nor the component parts of that acronym have specific definitions.
Diversity — the high school where I taught in my second career had a welcoming sign in the lobby that said “Strengthened by Diversity”. My own thought on that was that we are strengthened by unity, but enriched by diversity. But, then, the enrichment can lead to strengthening. But, the enrichment and the strengthening come from voluntary association, not forced association which usually is counterproductive. What does the FB poster have in mind for diversity? Hmm. Don’t know. No specifics.
Equity — for Progressives, this seems to mean equal outcomes, which is destructive of initiative, individual effort, perseverance, and so on. Or, does it mean ensuring a broadening of opportunities? Don’t know what the FB poster has in mind.
Inclusion — Again, don’t know, but this sure sounds like something forced on people, which would be contrary to a basic right of freedom of association.
So, to the FB poster, from now on, be proud of your opinions, state specifically what you mean, don’t hide behind a simplistic slogan, let everyone know exactly what it is you are promoting.
And, to A Friend, who may still be around, what you see as sealioning could actually be a variant of the Socratic method. Motive matters, and often enough, the motive of the one asking the questions is perceived differently by an observer, but, in either case, the effect should be to cause a refinement or adjustment of an initial position on an issue.
Excellent comment, HJ.
And that canard about “liberal comments” is simply a lie. The only requirement here is form and quality, not substance or ideology. The one exception has been the “chimpmania” racists who descended on EA some years ago. Reasoned, respectful, even aggressive left-leaners have always been able to make their points. I don’t tolerate personal attacks on my integrity, I don’t permit non-substantive arguments or repeated versions of the same assertions, and I have no compunction about telling someone they are too, uh, challenged to participate here.
Oh…and while I have threatened to ban anyone who comes here claiming the news media isn’t biased, which I regard as an insult to everyone’s intelligence, I never have done it, even when Jerry, our now departed, amiable George Mason prof, claimed that and dared me (nicely) to ban him for it.
There is another angle to the whole diversity, equity and inclusion concept that never gets mentioned and that is one’s willingness to step out of the safety of the preferred group.
We rarely hear about any concerted effort on the part of leaders in the minority communities to promote, within their own, the idea to expand their understanding of the wider community beyond their own. It always assumes that the minority adds value to the group but never benefits from adopting ideas and culture from the larger group. If this were not the case DEI offices would exist in minority run operations. You do not find high paid DEI positions at HBCU’s Where’s the DEI at the HBCUs?
HJ’s statement, “Or, does it mean ensuring a broadening of opportunities?” was got me thinking on this. What happens if the person who may feel held back because of past injustice relies on the past injustice to avoid availing him or herself to a wide variety of opportunities. Is it the complete fault of public schools if the kids are illiterate going into eighth grade or do the kids and the families of the kids play a significant role in retarding their ultimate opportunities? How can you broaden economic opportunities when early opportunities to achieve such success are wasted and or ridiculed?
In order for people to be included they must have some commonality. Our nation is fractured today because far too many want to limit themselves to their own little enclaves and do not see themselves as just a member of the larger group. In some respects they do not want to be included because their own ability to exclude would be in jeopardy. Exclusion helps create a sense of preferred identity which makes them feel safe. Until the benefits of creating minority identities are less than the benefits accrued in e pluribus u unum will we actually achieve any real beneficial results from DEI. Until then it will remain a negative sum game favoring the supposed marginalized group d’ jour.
Comment of the Day.
“What happens if the person who may feel held back because of past injustice relies on the past injustice to avoid availing him or herself to a wide variety of opportunities.”
Got me recalling a (regrettably) AWOL Chris Bentley COTD
PWS
I wonder if this fool thinks the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is, in fact, democratic? I mean, it says so in the name, doesn’t that mean we have to take it at face value?
kind of like how they insist Antifa is anti-fascist (it says so in the name), but the Nazis we’re not socialists.
-Jut
Well done.
And — conversely if one agrees with DEI, one should have to also be specific. Perhaps I approve of D but not E and I. Or whatever.
Facebook friends asked me why I don’t support diversity equity and inclusion I responded that I support “e pluribus u unum” she asked what does that mean ? I translated for her. She asked where did I read that. It’s a good thing I had cash on me
I’m sure you will. These folks cannot be reasoned with. I’m sure they are waking up today with news that Iran has apparently launched more missiles at Israel and are dancing a jig in glee because it means that Trump’s cease-fire negotiation has failed.
Because we all know that the most important thing is that Trump fails.
As for the Facebook post, we’ve discussed before on EA about how individual words mean different things when put together. One of these days, I’m going to counter with:
I will answer your question if you will answer mine. What word do you disagree with in National Socialist German Workers Party?
Definitions from Oxford Languages
National: relating to a nation; common to or characteristic of a whole nation.
Me: examples: National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Collegiate Athletic Association, National Organization of Women
Socialist:
noun: a person who advocates or practices socialism.
adjective: adhering to or based on the principles of socialism.
Me: All that so-called free stuff y’all say you want.
German:
adjective: relating to Germany, its people, or their language.
Me: The nationality that gave us Beethoven, Schiller, Goethe, the movable type printing press, the electric drill, the coffee filter, Bayer aspirin and Gummy Bears.
Workers:
1.a person who does a specified type of work or who works in a specified way.
2. a person who produces or achieves a specified thing.
Me: people who work for a living
Party:
1. A social gathering of invited guests, typically involving eating, drinking, and entertainment.
2. A formally constituted political group, typically operating on a national basis, that contests elections and attempts to form or take part in a government.
Me: A free association of people who socialize or organize together. Setting the birthday folks aside, a political party is just a group of Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Greens, etc, that attempt to take part in government.
Which word is evil?
Of course, none of them are. It’s the ideas that are formed when some words are put together and have a negative impact on the culture that are the problem. In the case of my example, National Socialist German Workers Party – the words put together – has come to mean the OG Nazis. Very negative and rightfully so. In the case of DEI, the policy of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion has come to mean programs and policies promoting racial preferences, outcomes based on those preferences rather than merit and coerced association with or even coerced validation of people with intangible qualities unrelated to the task at hand.
People who use the argument of our host’s friend don’t understand how language works which, now that I think about it, explains a great deal about why Far Leftists are keen with changing the meaning of words to muddle the debate.
I wonder at which time we should invoke the Julie principle, and stop spending so much time and brain energy on rebutting all these eruptions from the hard left? The Facebook post plays an Orwellian game with words, preaches to the choir based dogmas that are not open to discussion. Trying to debate true believers is an exercise in futility; there are options here. Option one is ridicule and satire, which is the approach I see by conservative commenters at social media. Option two is a shrug or an eyeroll, and then ignoring it. Or you do like Reagan to Carter with “There you go again…”.
What the Doctor fails to understand (or understands but fails to contend with) is that DEI is not merely the face value of the words. The left understands this, they used to call it dog-whistling. They certainly understood it well enough when the right was saying things like “All Lives Matter” or “It’s OK To Be White”. All lives do matter, it is OK to be white but these slogans became rhetorically charged based on how they were used, and the point of those slogans was to induce an apoplectic response from terminally online political junkies to showcase how unhinged they were to moderates.
I’ve been saying things like this for decades, often here: Terms carry baggage. I think one of my oldest contributions was that “If Feminism was simply just the belief that men and women should have equal rights, then I would be a feminist, but it isn’t, so I’m not.”
“If DEI programs were just programs to reduce bias so that people of equal merit, regardless of innate characteristics could compete on equal footing, then I’d be in favor of them. But they aren’t, so I’m not.”
Jack is right, and there’s some situations where diversity is not a strength. To use the less polite and infinitely more low hanging fruit: Sports teams don’t recruit one-armed, autistic, transgender midgets, although any team to do such a stunt would become the most diverse team in their league. “Diversity is Our Strength” is a virtue-signal that no team actually follows through on, it’s just something that goes on the pink jersey trotted out once a year to try to get women’s attendance up. But the average space is not competitive sport, and a one-armed, autistic, transgender midget might be able to do any number of jobs that they get passed over for because of their characteristics. That is actually a problem, and as a guiding star, something we should endeavor to overcome.
There are constructive ways to do that, but the problem is that DEI programs don’t always embrace things like having name-blind applications, because actually reducing bias tends to get results they don’t like. And that’s because disenfranchised people tend to have been disenfranchised their entire lives, and trying to correct that at the post-secondary level or employment after that lifetime of being failed just doesn’t work: They often just can’t compete on the merits.
Which is why they use “Equity” as their marker. They make up quotas, “affirmative” action, “positive” discrimination. Whatever it takes to get (insert demographic here) in boardrooms (but never janitor’s closets). This is exactly why the Doctor’s challenge, even though I reject the premise, is actually answerable: She’ll assign me Bonus Points for identifying the word I don’t like? Equity! Equity is hot trash, and unworkable in real life: We haven’t heard about the gender pay gap in a while, but that’s not because it’s gone: Pew just measured it for 2025 and it’s still 15%, we haven’t heard about it because it’s a toxic issue: The gap is almost entirely controlled for by correcting for overtime, the type of work, and experience. Applying “equity” to earnings would mean that men would have to be paid less than women for the same work, that’s entirely untenable, and so the issue has been abandoned.
And they know that, which is why they wrap it up in emotional language like Inclusion, Inclusion is great! How could you possibly argue against inclusion?! Except… when it isn’t. And no one is really confused by this. As a steelman: They don’t want minorities to feel unincluded in spaces because they’re the only people that look like they do. That’s noble. But inclusion obviously only goes so far… It doesn’t take much effort to think of any number of characteristics (or opinions) that would get someone unincluded from DEI, and it’s fairly obvious that it’s not just fringe crackery, but some very reasonable, very mainstream opinions are outside the Overton Windows of DEI proponents.
Point the First: Most Facebook users who post things like that, especially if they post them by using the “Share” button, are not interested in productive discussion. What they are doing is something else. It might be “performative virtue signalling.” They may simply feel like using the share button in order to keep their own wall (profile?) from becoming “stale,” with no recent posts.
As a generalization, they are no available for discussion based on their post.
= – = – = – =
Point the Second: Your friend may actually be available for discussion in a face to face private conversation, or perhaps even on the phone or in email. But the knowledge of an audience on Facebook, and the knowledge that the post is up there in a timeline, precludes open-minded conversation.
= – = – = – = – =
Point the Third: A good way of thinking about the slogans and arguments is this, from James Lindsay at the _New Discourses_ website. I’m not sayin that your friend is machiavellian. I’m saying that when you say something you get sucked into a discussion / debate / argument where your reaction is part of the proto-revolutionary dynamic.
“Name the Dynamic.”
https://newdiscourses.com/2023/06/name-the-dynamic/
Point the Fourth: Social Media has a business model that promotes disagreement which it can then monitor as “engagement” and monetize. Offhand I’m not certain of the citation. The following at _The Atlantic_ might be a good start, but it’s paywalled.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/social-media-democracy/600763/
or this at New Yorker,
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/we-know-less-about-social-media-than-we-think
Point the Fifth: Always remember Glenn Reynolds comment about leaving Twitter:
And I think he’s talking about the same general issue.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/12/03/twitter-facebook-social-media-bias-political-poison-blogosphere-instapundit-column/2183648002/
Thanks for reading!
charles w abbott
rochester NY
P.S.: Sorry for so many points.
Never apologize for a thorough comment!