The state of Oregon in the US has decided that English and math are white supremacy tools. To receive a high school diploma, competency in those areas is not needed and attendance requirements have been reduced.
An Oregon teacher lamented that they couldn’t get Hispanic and blacks interested in the subject and so many failed those subjects. Solution: not needed for graduation.
I know someone involved in K through 12 education in Texas that twice had this sequence happen: apply for a job (a permanent job not a temporary), know a bit about the other applicants, wonder what attributes the applicant had that caused them to be hired, then, 6 months to 12 months later find out that the person hired turned out to be such a problem, they had to be terminated.
The only beneficiary for those scenarios was the HR person doing the hiring getting a bonus for checking the right box. Everyone else--especially the students--suffered. This is absolutely bonkers, but they get away with it because the only stakeholders that might possibly complain--the parents of the students--have no idea any of the above ever happened. That is, they'll never know there was a qualified candidate.
In America (now also identifying as Amerika, Absurdistan and the Fourth Reich of Idiocracy) the challenges faced by the black population (currently 13.6%, and dwindling thanks to FedGov sponsored mass immigration of millions of third world poor, and Chinese military aged males of course), can be traced back to the Great Society of the LBJ administration (one of the MOST bigoted racist presidents of all time btw).
This is when the average black family, who one hundred years after the official end of southern democrat slavery, was becoming financially stable, with solid family and religious values, and had an obvious path forward in a society based on merit and achievement. Then, the FedGov stepped in and said, "... now, now just y'all wait a damn minute, all you uppity peoples are oppressed, and we have to have a solution for you (or we won't be able to fool half of America into voting for us again...).
The government grant, subsidy, incentive plantation mentality now identifying as DEI and ESG has ruined generations of people, of all colors, and it is time for the madness to end.
Great piece, Rigger but the best part was your linking to Pete Seeger’s song, “Little Boxes”. My father was a friend of Seegers so as a child I had several occasions to meet with him when dad took me along to dinners and concerts. Thanks for bringing back those great memories of great times with my dad. One of the best memories was having dinner with my dad, Pete Seeger and Arlo Guthrie. Yeah, I was raised by a long haired, hippie. It was a great childhood.
If you are to fight someone, and you hold yourself to the Marquis de Fantailler's rules and your opponent is of the "anything's a weapon, everywhere's a target"-school of fighting - you'll lose.
Now then, what happens when you open the border to races with completely different sets of ethics, morals, and cultural systems, and expect them to follow your set of rules et cetera?
The kind of uncontrolled immigration we're seeing is a problem. I'm all in favour of immigration done sensibly - but we're not seeing the "sensible" bit anymore.
“DEI smacks too much of a “solution looking for a problem”.”
.......
Starting the day with a cup of coffee and a fine essay is always enjoyable. And of course the opportunity to offer my own opinion is like dessert for breakfast.
I think DEI is the unworthy and lazy narcissism of the Unbright. Is there an easier way to prove your superiority than by adopting a solution that addresses one of history’s great injustices? The fact that the injustice no longer exists or that the narcissist proposes to replace it with a new injustice is an irony that escapes this kind of narcissist.
I am a white male conservative Canadian who has never discriminated against anyone because of their skin colour. I credit my Catholic upbringing for this. I have done my best to practice the Golden Rule. I did so even 55 years ago when I was a 22 year old leftist law student. Most people follow the path of least resistance. I am a little bit of a contrarian who doesn’t mind swimming upstream.
I vividly recall an incident that occurred on a Toronto bus in 1972. I was on my way to my articling job. The bus took me to the subway. As we approached the subway I was standing next to the exit. I always stood because the seats were all occupied when I boarded the bus. As we entered the bus entrance to the subway a young Korean man who was presumably not familiar with the inherited from England custom of queuing rushed towards the exit door saying “excuse me, excuse me”. I refused to move. I faced him and politely said, “no. I won’t excuse you. We are all getting off at the same place. You have been sitting. I have been standing. I am getting off before you” This stopped him dead in his tracks.
People have annoying ways of demonstrating their superiority. I am curious as to whether it is Monroe or Munroe.
I haven't corrected the typos in my post yet. It's weird how even after doing several "proofreads" before pushing the submit button these errors go unnoticed.
By the way… the fact that that record was high in the charts when I was a kid is such a reminder of a more humorous sane time in our history…. Imagine the utter outrage on X today if that record was first released yesterday.
There is a real percentage of me ( I think the Viking or Red Indian part) that wants to see a Carrington event take down the grid and then to sit back ( fully armed) and watch the Hollywood population around me fall to fucking pieces and eat each other or get murdered by the homeless hordes of open boarder zombies. I feel like saying “just bring it already” For me the story of blame is hilarious, for the main reason of the truth that souls who are in a state of spiritual amnesia do not understand that they have been every race over hundreds ( in fact millions) of lifetimes. I was a Dakota at the time of Sitting Bull, and in my last lifetime I was German in the Second World War. When I see modern day Indians with the massive casinos declare how white men stole their land I laugh inwardly, knowing full well they they were just ask likely not Indians when it really mattered, in fact they may have been white and on the other side… or they could have just as easily been Chinese during the whole period. I remember quite a few of my lifetimes and so when I said at the start of this post that the Red Indian or Viking part of me is itching to see the Woke puppets get wiped out, I was in fact referring to the real parts of me that still effect my nature in this lifetime. With a greater awareness of your true nature as an immortal being have serial physical lifetimes, it’s hard not laugh at the Flatland Amnesiacs screaming racist at other asleep souls.
I loved this post. Also, I was trimming Brussels sprouts earlier and thought of you. I hoped you had something new up here and was gratified that you do!
The assumption that a group is not “diverse” if they “all look alike” is the foundational prejudice. Without it, racism and sexism could not exist. There is so much diversity among white men, or black women, or even a group of siblings or cousins, that it makes the world a truly beautiful place for those who are not blind to it. It is not something to strive for any more than a healthy person need strive to breathe; it is something to strive to notice and appreciate. And it certainly becomes more noticeable when one is plunged into situations— such as your living and working abroad— where everything and everyone seems full of novelty, but the gift is finding it wherever you are. It will make you magnetic to people if you seek and love what makes them special; it is the very model of a loving parent or our perfect God that we all crave.
It is only when we have such a non-diverse, stereotypical (frankly stupid) definition of what it means to be successful that we neglect the true diversity of human society. Because culturally we don’t, in fact, really appreciate diversity in any but the silliest and most superficial, prejudiced, cookie-cutter, Ticky-tacky forms.
I am having some trouble coming to terms with the hate scale that has Hitler on one end and J.K.Rowling on the other. I am just not sure what that thing is.
It's more of a commentary that JKR has been derided as a bigot spewing "hate" speech for her comments regarding the importance of biological sex. There is, of course, nothing even remotely hateful about what JKR has written - but it's classed as such by the gender borg peeps.
Nice piece. Now what about the male - female equality thing? I think that positive discrimination of women in academia has improved life in the typical male bastions (maths, physics, engineering, ...). I believe that it does inspire the best women students to believe in themselves. It has decreased the pernicious effects of the old boys’ networks. Of course it presumably meant that in some cases a position went not to the research-wise best candidate but to the teaching-wise best candidate instead. A university department has many tasks and needs to have a team of researchers, teachers, and supporting staff which carries out all its tasks well enough.
Merit, based on measurable performance in the field in question, is the only positive "discrimination" that has value, when selecting people for positions of value. All the rest is fakery.
I'm arguing that you are wrong. Unless you agree that measurable performance in teaching is relevant to doing a job in a university department. What do you mean by "a position of value"? And how should a mathematics department decide whether to hire a number theorist or a statistician? Lots of mathematicians (especially the older ones) find that number theory has intrinsically far greater value than statistics. But a maths department has to help prepare young people who will do stuff with maths in the real world. It is not just an incubator of future Fields medalists.
Position of value; a position of employment or placement that provides or has the potential to provide value to the betterment of society, or similarly a position which could bring great detriment to society. Versus an appointment to a position that provides benefit to the individual, but to the detriment to society.
(For positions which are not of significant value (e.g. entertainment) I care much less.)
Maybe I misinterpreted your comment. I inferred you supported the placement of people into positions giving their immutable characteristics (skin tone, sex, ethnicity, etc) as much or more value than their performance. If that is true, then yes, I disagree. If I misunderstood your comment, then my apologies.
Thanks! I did not know the expression. I was trying to say that there can be value to society in preferring a female to a male or a person with a dark skin to a person with a light skin even if e.g. one would rank the white male above, though only marginally behind, the black female in terms of e.g. numbers of papers published so far. Over the years, I have seen the value to society of mathematics departments and physics and astronomy departments in the Netherlands grow through modest, careful, well argued and thought about promotion of diversity. Not by fiat from above. But in department selection committees.
I am not in favour of discrimination based on immutable characteristics whether we describe it as 'positive' or 'negative'.
If a university is seeking to bolster its teaching base, then it should advertise any opening as such.
What is the argument for discrimination here? Is it that mostly male departments had a hiring bias against women? I am not convinced this is true. Four decades ago when I was just thinking about getting serious about physics, I was aware of numerous initiatives trying to encourage more women into things like physics and maths. These kinds of programs have only increased and yet the cries from a certain section that things like "physics" are hellholes of toxic masculinity have only increased too. You only have to read some of the ridiculous things the 'activist' types say. One, for example, said that lecture halls weren't designed with a person like her in mind (being built exclusively, one presumes, for white males).
The university where I did my first degree had about 20% women on the undergraduate physics course. When I applied for my PhD I had offers from two brilliant profs. The one I didn't choose ended up with 2 female doctoral students. The group I joined had 3 women out of 7 doctoral students. My job, straight out of doing my PhD was at an industrial research lab and my desk was opposite a black woman doctor of physics. Maybe I was just lucky, but I have not witnessed any noticeable bias against hiring women in my career - quite the opposite in fact.
It's the same question that faces us regarding any inequality - is the disparity because of discrimination or are other factors at play?
If the problem lies in the culture - where physics is not seen as a 'woman' career - then why should the universities be trying to 'fix' that culture? If you don't employ candidates based on merit - then you'll tank your department - and you'll just end up with a wonderfully diverse, but largely useless, group. That's no great advert for anything. I think women could do very well on their own merits - even back then - because I question this assumption that there was some kind of discrimination operating against them either in admissions or hiring.
My eldest daughter is over 30 now - and even back then the notion that certain jobs or fields of study like physics were "best done by the boys" was seen as ridiculous.
I'd agree that more mixed departments (in terms of sex ratios) has improved things socially and environment wise. I just don't agree that this should have been artificially imposed.
I am asking for some help here; what are the actual law(s) around the fact that you cannot prosecute a person for crimes that their father/mother, grandfather/grandmother, etc, or relation committed, in the USA. This may also extend into the fact that we do no transfer 'family' debt from deceased family members to living family members, again, in the USA. I am seeking for the specific statutes. Thanks.
The state of Oregon in the US has decided that English and math are white supremacy tools. To receive a high school diploma, competency in those areas is not needed and attendance requirements have been reduced.
An Oregon teacher lamented that they couldn’t get Hispanic and blacks interested in the subject and so many failed those subjects. Solution: not needed for graduation.
Knowledge is power.
Keep people ignorant; keep them powerless.
I know someone involved in K through 12 education in Texas that twice had this sequence happen: apply for a job (a permanent job not a temporary), know a bit about the other applicants, wonder what attributes the applicant had that caused them to be hired, then, 6 months to 12 months later find out that the person hired turned out to be such a problem, they had to be terminated.
The only beneficiary for those scenarios was the HR person doing the hiring getting a bonus for checking the right box. Everyone else--especially the students--suffered. This is absolutely bonkers, but they get away with it because the only stakeholders that might possibly complain--the parents of the students--have no idea any of the above ever happened. That is, they'll never know there was a qualified candidate.
In America (now also identifying as Amerika, Absurdistan and the Fourth Reich of Idiocracy) the challenges faced by the black population (currently 13.6%, and dwindling thanks to FedGov sponsored mass immigration of millions of third world poor, and Chinese military aged males of course), can be traced back to the Great Society of the LBJ administration (one of the MOST bigoted racist presidents of all time btw).
This is when the average black family, who one hundred years after the official end of southern democrat slavery, was becoming financially stable, with solid family and religious values, and had an obvious path forward in a society based on merit and achievement. Then, the FedGov stepped in and said, "... now, now just y'all wait a damn minute, all you uppity peoples are oppressed, and we have to have a solution for you (or we won't be able to fool half of America into voting for us again...).
The government grant, subsidy, incentive plantation mentality now identifying as DEI and ESG has ruined generations of people, of all colors, and it is time for the madness to end.
Great piece, Rigger but the best part was your linking to Pete Seeger’s song, “Little Boxes”. My father was a friend of Seegers so as a child I had several occasions to meet with him when dad took me along to dinners and concerts. Thanks for bringing back those great memories of great times with my dad. One of the best memories was having dinner with my dad, Pete Seeger and Arlo Guthrie. Yeah, I was raised by a long haired, hippie. It was a great childhood.
That's awesome Cindy. I'm jealous
DEI-ESG is the final solution.
Let me cut it out in cardboard:
If you are to fight someone, and you hold yourself to the Marquis de Fantailler's rules and your opponent is of the "anything's a weapon, everywhere's a target"-school of fighting - you'll lose.
Now then, what happens when you open the border to races with completely different sets of ethics, morals, and cultural systems, and expect them to follow your set of rules et cetera?
They win, and you lose.
It really is that simple.
The kind of uncontrolled immigration we're seeing is a problem. I'm all in favour of immigration done sensibly - but we're not seeing the "sensible" bit anymore.
“DEI smacks too much of a “solution looking for a problem”.”
.......
Starting the day with a cup of coffee and a fine essay is always enjoyable. And of course the opportunity to offer my own opinion is like dessert for breakfast.
I think DEI is the unworthy and lazy narcissism of the Unbright. Is there an easier way to prove your superiority than by adopting a solution that addresses one of history’s great injustices? The fact that the injustice no longer exists or that the narcissist proposes to replace it with a new injustice is an irony that escapes this kind of narcissist.
I am a white male conservative Canadian who has never discriminated against anyone because of their skin colour. I credit my Catholic upbringing for this. I have done my best to practice the Golden Rule. I did so even 55 years ago when I was a 22 year old leftist law student. Most people follow the path of least resistance. I am a little bit of a contrarian who doesn’t mind swimming upstream.
I vividly recall an incident that occurred on a Toronto bus in 1972. I was on my way to my articling job. The bus took me to the subway. As we approached the subway I was standing next to the exit. I always stood because the seats were all occupied when I boarded the bus. As we entered the bus entrance to the subway a young Korean man who was presumably not familiar with the inherited from England custom of queuing rushed towards the exit door saying “excuse me, excuse me”. I refused to move. I faced him and politely said, “no. I won’t excuse you. We are all getting off at the same place. You have been sitting. I have been standing. I am getting off before you” This stopped him dead in his tracks.
People have annoying ways of demonstrating their superiority. I am curious as to whether it is Monroe or Munroe.
It's Munroe
I haven't corrected the typos in my post yet. It's weird how even after doing several "proofreads" before pushing the submit button these errors go unnoticed.
By the way… the fact that that record was high in the charts when I was a kid is such a reminder of a more humorous sane time in our history…. Imagine the utter outrage on X today if that record was first released yesterday.
There is a real percentage of me ( I think the Viking or Red Indian part) that wants to see a Carrington event take down the grid and then to sit back ( fully armed) and watch the Hollywood population around me fall to fucking pieces and eat each other or get murdered by the homeless hordes of open boarder zombies. I feel like saying “just bring it already” For me the story of blame is hilarious, for the main reason of the truth that souls who are in a state of spiritual amnesia do not understand that they have been every race over hundreds ( in fact millions) of lifetimes. I was a Dakota at the time of Sitting Bull, and in my last lifetime I was German in the Second World War. When I see modern day Indians with the massive casinos declare how white men stole their land I laugh inwardly, knowing full well they they were just ask likely not Indians when it really mattered, in fact they may have been white and on the other side… or they could have just as easily been Chinese during the whole period. I remember quite a few of my lifetimes and so when I said at the start of this post that the Red Indian or Viking part of me is itching to see the Woke puppets get wiped out, I was in fact referring to the real parts of me that still effect my nature in this lifetime. With a greater awareness of your true nature as an immortal being have serial physical lifetimes, it’s hard not laugh at the Flatland Amnesiacs screaming racist at other asleep souls.
I’ll correct the mistakes later. Can’t do it from my phone for some reason.
"Edit" is only available on the web version. Sadly not an option for the mobile version.
I loved this post. Also, I was trimming Brussels sprouts earlier and thought of you. I hoped you had something new up here and was gratified that you do!
The assumption that a group is not “diverse” if they “all look alike” is the foundational prejudice. Without it, racism and sexism could not exist. There is so much diversity among white men, or black women, or even a group of siblings or cousins, that it makes the world a truly beautiful place for those who are not blind to it. It is not something to strive for any more than a healthy person need strive to breathe; it is something to strive to notice and appreciate. And it certainly becomes more noticeable when one is plunged into situations— such as your living and working abroad— where everything and everyone seems full of novelty, but the gift is finding it wherever you are. It will make you magnetic to people if you seek and love what makes them special; it is the very model of a loving parent or our perfect God that we all crave.
It is only when we have such a non-diverse, stereotypical (frankly stupid) definition of what it means to be successful that we neglect the true diversity of human society. Because culturally we don’t, in fact, really appreciate diversity in any but the silliest and most superficial, prejudiced, cookie-cutter, Ticky-tacky forms.
That's a great comment Diana - wish I could give it more likes.
Although I would have to subtract a few for your positive portrayal of Brussels sprouts
I am having some trouble coming to terms with the hate scale that has Hitler on one end and J.K.Rowling on the other. I am just not sure what that thing is.
It's more of a commentary that JKR has been derided as a bigot spewing "hate" speech for her comments regarding the importance of biological sex. There is, of course, nothing even remotely hateful about what JKR has written - but it's classed as such by the gender borg peeps.
Nice piece. Now what about the male - female equality thing? I think that positive discrimination of women in academia has improved life in the typical male bastions (maths, physics, engineering, ...). I believe that it does inspire the best women students to believe in themselves. It has decreased the pernicious effects of the old boys’ networks. Of course it presumably meant that in some cases a position went not to the research-wise best candidate but to the teaching-wise best candidate instead. A university department has many tasks and needs to have a team of researchers, teachers, and supporting staff which carries out all its tasks well enough.
Merit, based on measurable performance in the field in question, is the only positive "discrimination" that has value, when selecting people for positions of value. All the rest is fakery.
I'm arguing that you are wrong. Unless you agree that measurable performance in teaching is relevant to doing a job in a university department. What do you mean by "a position of value"? And how should a mathematics department decide whether to hire a number theorist or a statistician? Lots of mathematicians (especially the older ones) find that number theory has intrinsically far greater value than statistics. But a maths department has to help prepare young people who will do stuff with maths in the real world. It is not just an incubator of future Fields medalists.
Position of value; a position of employment or placement that provides or has the potential to provide value to the betterment of society, or similarly a position which could bring great detriment to society. Versus an appointment to a position that provides benefit to the individual, but to the detriment to society.
(For positions which are not of significant value (e.g. entertainment) I care much less.)
Maybe I misinterpreted your comment. I inferred you supported the placement of people into positions giving their immutable characteristics (skin tone, sex, ethnicity, etc) as much or more value than their performance. If that is true, then yes, I disagree. If I misunderstood your comment, then my apologies.
Thanks! I did not know the expression. I was trying to say that there can be value to society in preferring a female to a male or a person with a dark skin to a person with a light skin even if e.g. one would rank the white male above, though only marginally behind, the black female in terms of e.g. numbers of papers published so far. Over the years, I have seen the value to society of mathematics departments and physics and astronomy departments in the Netherlands grow through modest, careful, well argued and thought about promotion of diversity. Not by fiat from above. But in department selection committees.
I am not in favour of discrimination based on immutable characteristics whether we describe it as 'positive' or 'negative'.
If a university is seeking to bolster its teaching base, then it should advertise any opening as such.
What is the argument for discrimination here? Is it that mostly male departments had a hiring bias against women? I am not convinced this is true. Four decades ago when I was just thinking about getting serious about physics, I was aware of numerous initiatives trying to encourage more women into things like physics and maths. These kinds of programs have only increased and yet the cries from a certain section that things like "physics" are hellholes of toxic masculinity have only increased too. You only have to read some of the ridiculous things the 'activist' types say. One, for example, said that lecture halls weren't designed with a person like her in mind (being built exclusively, one presumes, for white males).
The university where I did my first degree had about 20% women on the undergraduate physics course. When I applied for my PhD I had offers from two brilliant profs. The one I didn't choose ended up with 2 female doctoral students. The group I joined had 3 women out of 7 doctoral students. My job, straight out of doing my PhD was at an industrial research lab and my desk was opposite a black woman doctor of physics. Maybe I was just lucky, but I have not witnessed any noticeable bias against hiring women in my career - quite the opposite in fact.
It's the same question that faces us regarding any inequality - is the disparity because of discrimination or are other factors at play?
If the problem lies in the culture - where physics is not seen as a 'woman' career - then why should the universities be trying to 'fix' that culture? If you don't employ candidates based on merit - then you'll tank your department - and you'll just end up with a wonderfully diverse, but largely useless, group. That's no great advert for anything. I think women could do very well on their own merits - even back then - because I question this assumption that there was some kind of discrimination operating against them either in admissions or hiring.
My eldest daughter is over 30 now - and even back then the notion that certain jobs or fields of study like physics were "best done by the boys" was seen as ridiculous.
I'd agree that more mixed departments (in terms of sex ratios) has improved things socially and environment wise. I just don't agree that this should have been artificially imposed.
I am asking for some help here; what are the actual law(s) around the fact that you cannot prosecute a person for crimes that their father/mother, grandfather/grandmother, etc, or relation committed, in the USA. This may also extend into the fact that we do no transfer 'family' debt from deceased family members to living family members, again, in the USA. I am seeking for the specific statutes. Thanks.