This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

I kind of agree with a lot of this, and with wpkirish... by Kbyrnes

...I think George Orwell would have a field day with the bad-faith adoption of what sound like valid principles as cudgels to beat your ideological opponents into submission. On the other hand, I wonder if the frequent citations of bad-DEI-ish outcomes (like students screaming at a prof on the quad) reflect the mainstream reality or are outliers. We do tend to focus on the bright, shiny, loud objects.

Tom Wolfe certainly had a field day with the habit of fashionably adopting social justice issues while continuing to live lives that contravene, one way or another, social justice--see his piece, "Radical Chic."

Ackman does go seriously astray in the following paragraph, to which I have inserted labels to make my following discussion clear:

PART 1: "Having a darker skin color, a less common sexual identity, and/or being a woman doesn’t make one necessarily oppressed or even disadvantaged." PART 2: "While slavery remains a permanent stain on our country’s history – a fact which is used by DEI to label white people as oppressors – it doesn’t therefore hold that all white people generations after the abolishment of slavery should be held responsible for its evils. Similarly, the fact that Columbus discovered America doesn’t make all modern-day Italians colonialists."

Part 1 and Part 2 are like logical ships passing in the night. Part 2 does not remotely follow from Part 1; I'm not sure why he put them together in one paragraph, as if they logically belonged together.

I agree with Part 2--his conclusions are so absurdly simple that they approach the status of straw men.

I strenuously disagree with Part 1, even with his semi-caveat word "necessarily," and mostly because he decided to add "or even disadvantaged." Being a woman is still at least somewhat of a disadvantage in our economic society, and even in the culture at large. There is still a general pay gap. We have many people in this country who still subscribe to a religious belief that women must be subservient to men. We have legislators and courts who find that they know more than a woman's physician about what might be life-threatening, while we see none of that (that I can think of) concerning men's health.

Being LGBTQetc. is rather obviously a disadvantage in our society, as we have states passing laws about bathroom use, sports participation, etc. that impact such people and not the non-LGBTQetc. people. There is a lot of religious resistance to that lifestyle; if I recall correctly, a drag show or something like that was sponsored by some group or groups at ND nd widely decried as against the Catholic mission of the school Now, I don't dispute that per se; but it is objective evidence that if you are LGBTQetc. in this culture, you're going to have at least a somewhat tougher row to how than plain old straight white people.

There's still a fair amount of racism in our society; less than in years past, I suppose, but it sure hasn't disappeared. There is a lot of intolerance widely expressed on a wide variety of awful social media platforms.

I don't even think Part 1 contributes anything to Ackman's overall theme regarding DEI. he'd have been better off editing it out.