I can rattle some off, I guess? Institutional DEI can be elitist, furthering the interests of well-off credentialed people at the expense of those it claims to help; performative; a way of short-circuiting real debates about values that are uncomfortable or that cut against elite interests; largely defined in terms relevant to competing groups of rich white people; a surreptitious way of laundering policy arguments that have nothing to do with righting past injustices ("equity-washing"); counterproductive, in the sense of organizing and motivating opposition to social justice by adopting the language least persuasive to those who need to be persuaded, and, further, by reducing the effectiveness of organizations that would otherwise naturally work to reduce inequality. I'm sure there's a bunch more.
You're asking that question, I assume, as a bid for a show of good faith that I'm not just knee-jerking anything that opposes "diversity" efforts. That's fair enough! I don't know that we want to litigate the whole concept, though; I'm just here to point out a really bad argument.
I've read and understood this response. I've re-read and tried to understand your original comment criticizing the article. I do not understand it, though (except that it highlights the article's tone—critically).
Who is the opposition to Huemer (the author of this article)? What does animate their opposition to his case?
You asked me upthread to come up with some strong arguments (to contrast with the really weak ones in the post) for the article's position. I'm asking you to do the same in the other direction.
You said you knew of lots of good criticisms against a position, and I asked you what they were.
I'm saying that I can't make out what it is about article's position that you're saying is bad. Since you mentioned opposition who are animated by the author's position, I'm asking: "Who are the opposition? What does animate them?"[1] The fact that I don't know and couldn't figure out what you're referring to is the premise of the subthread. (And not false premise—like a contrived exercise.) Asking me to "come up" with arguments is different from asking you to say what you already have on your mind. Asking for me to come up with them when premise is that I've already articulated an inability to make sense of what's presented so far is another level removed from that, still.
1. It's actually not even different from the first question—just two different sets, and me asking, what are the sets' members? since you alluded to knowledge of them.
That makes it sound like the failure of productive discussion in this instance is a blameless, emergent phenomenon. If you don't want to discuss it productively...? Okay. "Nothing for us to productively discuss" isn't the best description for what comes down to someone being coy (and then, eventually, evasive), though.
I don't believe any of us disagree that such programs are ineffective under optimal conditions. Aside from that, what are the "lots of" other sharp, critical comments to be made?
I would think, given the over the top snark you had in your previous comments, you would have more to say on about on the topic. Right?
No, my goal here is just to point out how bad this blog post is, not to solve diversity. Unlike the author of the blog post, I don't think I'm capable of single-handedly solving diversity.
Sorry I didn't reply to this earlier, I hit a posting limit yesterday.
Thanks for the response. Honestly, I probably would have deleted the comment I had made, but you responded to it before I could remove it. Sorry about that.
I was annoyed because the topic is something I take very personally. I was being crappy and shouldn't have commented the way I did. Generally, I'm trying to get better about not leaving crappy comments when I'm in a bad mood, but I screwed up. I hope my comments didn't bum you out or anything.
You're asking that question, I assume, as a bid for a show of good faith that I'm not just knee-jerking anything that opposes "diversity" efforts. That's fair enough! I don't know that we want to litigate the whole concept, though; I'm just here to point out a really bad argument.