Adams is talking about white political elites rather than white academics, but as Elizabeth Warren illustrates, there’s a lot of ideological overlap between the two.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm completely baffled by how you've managed to reach the opposite conclusion to the one I'd expect.
Identity politics is gleefully adopted by the elite institutions, and the base of resistance against it is working class.
To use a concrete example, consider MacKenzie Bezos donating tens of millions of dollars to “AAPI” organizations. Those AAPI organizations don’t answer to recent Chinese or Bangladeshi immigrants in Queens. Their whole incentive structure is oriented around appealing to rich white people like MacKenzie Bezos. Or to use another example, consider BLM. Civil rights issues historically were championed by black churches, who answered to black constituencies. But organizations like BLM are funded mainly by white people. Ibram Kendi is a professor selected by white faculty at a university run by white people.
The fact that those white elites will often support advocacy complaining about “white people” doesn’t change that. When a white Harvard professor complains about “white people” they don’t mean themselves. They mean some racist truck driver in Iowa. They’re in denial of the fact that they’re actually the elites.
The point I was trying to make was that HN has some very real and very wide ideological blindspots. It's true what you say that there are many viewpoints here on HN, but they aren't all uniformly represented. That said, the commentariat here is also self selected, so not necessarily representative of the general population.
> By contrast, diversity at Stanford, especially among faculty, is carefully curated by the overwhelmingly white faculty.
That may be true, but at the same time there are more stakeholders who have input into initiatives like these.
> But the white Stanford faculty wouldn’t hire those immigrants into the cultural studies department of the university. You’re much more likely to get a job at Stanford by writing papers on how colonial terms “cause harm.”
Do you have evidence that such people didn't have input or their input wasn't allowed? Or are you just speculating to make a point? You seem fixated on white Stanford faculty, but it's not clear that the linked list is even a product of the faculty, it seems like it's a product of a committee of the IT department. It seems to me like you just have some ideological things to say about Stanford faculty without really addressing the facts on the ground re: this list.
I'm not accidentally using forbidden words, I'm intentionally using words that are not in fact forbidden, because no one (especially Stanford) has forbidden anyone from saying them. Stanford doesn't police my language, I can use whatever words I want. If someone is offended by my words they can tell me.
But Stanford is not in the same position I am, posting on an internet forum. They are a corporate entity looking to manage their brand. I'm going to keep making this point, because so far no one so far has really engaged with it, but this is no different than Coke having an internal style guide for how their logo can be used and in what contexts.
Where? I’ve read all the replies. How is Stanford deciding what should be used on their sites different from how Coke decides how its logo can be used?
> You just can't seem to understand that this is a domino falling into a field of dominos, not a barren desert.
Right, so at best your argument is that this is a slippery slope. Moving past the fallacious nature of that argument, you still haven’t articulated any conceivable harm to you or society. Even if all of the dominoes you foresee fall, then where are we? Are you restricted by government thought police at that point, and that’s what you’re worried about?
Or are you worried about your employer restricting your speech? If so, I refer you to my Coke argument; you are already subject to a list of words approved by your employer. The only difference is that it’s implicit, but that doesn’t make it any different than what Stanford has here (except less transparent and delivered by capriciously by fiat instead of created by the community with input from across the company).
What does it matter to you if some dominoes are falling elsewhere?
I imagine if you are white you might compensate for that by being more woke to protect your career. This is, after all, still a majority white country in spite of the admissions policies of elite universities and the racial makeup of tv commercials. So that may reflect on staff hired decades ago. Although I believe elite universities will begin to change the racial makeup of their staff and students more aggressively since the status quo is indefensible.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Stanford_University_pe...
That means that you can’t point to diversity in the ranks of elite universities to justify those institutions taking the lead on discussions of issues affecting minorities. The people who get into those positions do so because they appeal to whites, not because they represent their communities.
As they say, you can’t dismantle the master’s house with the master’s tools. We shouldn’t be looking to academics hand picked by white elites to figure out how to police minority communities, or what words to use or not use with respect to minorities, etc. Elite universities are inherently bad vehicles for leading the discourse on those issues.
This system has shown to increase diversity in academic departments, and it’s not something the white faculty can conspire to keep under control. The issue is that progress is slow for two reasons: 1) positions open up rarely and 2) the hiring pool is limited. These are issues that are being worked on, but progress is being made.
The fact that Harvard hires some minorities doesn’t change the fact that those minorities were hand picked by white elites and operate within an institution dominated by elite whites.
Now, that doesn’t mean those minorities can’t be great professors, as individuals. But it does mean that their views on minority issues shouldn’t be give any more weight than those of the elite whites that selected them and on whom they depend for their position and status. Leadership on those issues must instead come from people who are put in positions of leadership by minority groups themselves.
But it does change the makeup of who gets to make future decisions. I also feel like you're doing here what you often decry when white liberals do it: infantilizing minorities. You're discounting and minimizing the people who are not white elites, who do have a voice in making such decisions, as if they are completely invisible or beholden to other forces.
For instance, our faculty search committee had 1 white male on it. The first round interviews were done by the committee, final selection of candidates was done by the whole faculty, and the vote on who to hire was unanimous. The chair, who is not a minority transmitted the decision to the dean, who is a minority, and the candidate was hired. This person will be serving on the hiring committee next semester. I'm failing to see the invisible hand of the white elites here, who have somehow masterminded this turn of events.
And even if they did, why should we assume that minorities who are hired by white elites are somehow beholden or deferential to them? These faculty have their own agency and are highly educated in their own right. They can make up their own minds.
HN, like the American tech industry in general, is almost certainly more diverse than the Stanford administration and faculty. Moreover, diversity in HN is organic. Folks on here may happen to be Laotian American (or even Laotian—HN is international). Nobody selected them for inclusion in the community.
By contrast, diversity at Stanford, especially among faculty, is carefully curated by the overwhelmingly white faculty. Your average immigrant from a former colony may not care about eliminating “colonial language.” But the white Stanford faculty wouldn’t hire those immigrants into the cultural studies department of the university. You’re much more likely to get a job at Stanford by writing papers on how colonial terms “cause harm.”
The faculty system and widespread use of race and nationality conscious hiring gives white people at elite universities tremendous power. There’s few other organizations where the white leadership gets to hand pick any minority representation based on its own ideological priors.