"Where Meritocracy Goes To Die" - DEI Is 'Racist, Bigoted, Collective Punishment'
In case you missed it, the topic of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies has been smashed back to top-of-mind recently as two billionaires battle in public over the benefits (or detriments) of corporate DEI efforts.
Mark Cuban (fighting out of the virtue-signaling pro-DEI corner) did not like Elon Musk's (pro-meritocracy, anti-DEI) criticism of diversity goals set by United Airlines pilot-training academy. The airline wanted its academy to have "50% of enrolled students who are women and/or people of color."
Musk wrote on X:
"The airline industry can't find enough qualified pilots even without insane DEI requirements!"
Cuban snapped back:
"Once they graduate, it's a multi-year process to have an OPPORTUNITY to pilot for United,"
"Since I'm a nice guy and want you to be fully informed, I'll share with you the benefit of the 60 seconds I spent looking for how the program works. BTW, looks like multiple layers of merit-based evaluations before they can fly for United…," Cuban continued while attaching a link to the academy's website.
Musk was not impressed and replied to another user on X, that:
"Mark Cuban is a racist."
Adding (rather humorously) that "The only way to prove he is not racist AND sexist is to put an Asian woman and a white woman on his basketball team!" reiterating his suggestion for Cuban's (former) NBA team, the Dallas Mavericks.
DEI has become a major point of contention among business executives like Musk and Cuban.
Another billionaire who seems to have recently become un-woke - hedge fund manager Bill Ackman - called attention to the practice last week, saying that DEI was "racist because reverse racism is racism."
Musk agreed with Ackman, calling DEI "just another word for racism."
Cuban, on the other hand, felt that Musk was ignoring the benefits of DEI.
"You may not agree, but I take it as a given that there are people of various races, ethnicities, orientation, etc that are regularly excluded from hiring consideration," Cuban wrote in a series of posts on X.
It was at this point that Gad Saad, famed author and expert in evolutionary psychology, jumped in to the fray to unleash a series of truth bombs on X:
"I've been seeing some folks (e.g., @mcuban) defending the virtues in some instances of DIE principles (diversity, inclusion, and equity). There is nothing laudable about the ethos of DIE. Those who support DIE are using consequentialism to justify an otherwise deontological violation. "
Saad points out that he has been explaining for decades that:
"if there are systemic barriers that stop some groups from flourishing (the proverbial equality of opportunities) then by all means fight hard to eradicate such obstacles.
But DIE never operates in that spirit. It always presumes that the non-equality of outcomes must be due to systemic bigotry and hence "Noble People" must intervene to fix the problem (by implementing otherwise "corrective anti-bigoted" policies).
Academia is rife with DIE at all levels and it is a frontal and fatal attack on the meritocratic ethos that shapes scientific and academic excellence.
There is nothing noble, laudable, just, or fair about DIE. You either believe in meritocracy or you don't. DIE is where meritocracy goes to die."
The author then highlights the farce in the real world:
"I've previously discussed data from the US government that shows that across all educational levels (associate, bachelor, master, and doctorate) and five racial breakdowns, women outnumber men in EVERY single one of the 20 cells. And yet, DIE bureaucracies continue to push for "corrective" programs meant to protect women in American and Canadian universities as though we were in Waziristan.
Professors are getting hired or promoted based on their skin color or gender orientation. It is DIE that allows such violations of individual dignity to take place.
Imagine that in the 21st century, universities are OPENLY posting job announcements that restrict the application pool to people of a certain skin hue.
Oh, there aren't enough transgender indigenous women of color who are full professors of pure mathematics, well then we must implement DIE policies to permit such individuals to flourish. This is how you get the Claudine Gay's of the world.
Oh Brown University does not have a full professor transgender of color, clearly this must be because of bigotry, unleash the DIE Taliban.
Oh Wellesley College does not have a non-binary neuroscientist of color, clearly this must be because of bigotry, unleash the DIE Taliban.
Oh not a single pansexual classicist of color at Princeton, clearly this must be because of bigotry, release the DIE Taliban."
Adding a mocking post on X:
This is allowed, Saad explains, because of "past historical grievances."
"No! You do not address past grievances by committing the exact same bigotry albeit on a new class of "acceptable" people. Oh you are white and heterosexual AND male, sorry asshole, no professorship for you."
Saad even wrote a book on the 'parasitic mind virus' that is killing common sense:
"I've explained on countless occasions the distinction between deontological and consequentialist ethics and how the inability to know which principles are deontological causes minds to be parasitized.
DIE is a violation of deontological principles.
There is no "I believe in free speech but not for Donald Trump" or "I believe in the presumption of innocence but not for Brett Kavanaugh" or "I believe journalistic integrity but not when it comes to Hunter Biden's laptop."
Similarly, you cannot be for the meritocratic ethos and be for DIE. This is akin to being a pregnant virgin."
In summary, Saad pulls no punches:
"DIE is grotesque. DIE is cancer. DIE is racism. DIE is bigotry. DIE is non-meritocratic. DIE kills innovation. DIE kills excellence. DIE is collectivist punishment. DIE is Ebola.
DIE is an affront to individual dignity. There is nothing redeemable about this racist ethos that masquerades as progressive social justice."
Musk agreed (humorously):
Harsh, but fair. Thoughts, Mr.Cuban?
to widen the scope of financial, economic and political information available to the professional investing public.
to skeptically examine and, where necessary, attack the flaccid institution that financial journalism has become.
to liberate oppressed knowledge.
to provide analysis uninhibited by political constraint.
to facilitate information's unending quest for freedom.
our method: pseudonymous speech...
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. it thus exemplifies the purpose behind the bill of rights, and of the first amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-- and their ideas from suppression-- at the hand of an intolerant society.
The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. but political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.
Though often maligned (typically by those frustrated by an inability to engage in ad hominem attacks) anonymous speech has a long and storied history in the united states. used by the likes of mark twain (aka samuel langhorne clemens) to criticize common ignorance, and perhaps most famously by alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay (aka publius) to write the federalist papers, we think ourselves in good company in using one or another nom de plume. particularly in light of an emerging trend against vocalizing public dissent in the united states, we believe in the critical importance of anonymity and its role in dissident speech. like the economist magazine, we also believe that keeping authorship anonymous moves the focus of discussion to the content of speech and away from the speaker- as it should be. we believe not only that you should be comfortable with anonymous speech in such an environment, but that you should be suspicious of any speech that isn't.