About your last paragraph, I find it quite telling that diversity notoriously does not include diversity of thought, it's all about immutable character traits. It is also sometimes no longer considered permissible to hide your immutable character traits anymore which I find sad.
Hiring practices are not, cannot, be based on background, due to time constraints of the hiring process. It is not possible to know a person's background, though you could certainly get some idea of it given enough time, perspective alone would prevent you from understanding it as they do. In fact, hiring is based almost entirely on the prejudices of the person(s) making the hiring decision. These days, publicly traded companies are incentivized through market forces (blackrock, ESG scoring) to be prejudiced against certain groups.
If you're looking for a faith-based interpretation of the meaning of words, good, bad, or otherwise, you'll need to extend some faith in the existing meaning first.
I'm not going to defend an opinion that I haven't given, such as that the death penalty should be given to a person based on their sexual orientation. I will, however, defend the notion that every person's opinion holds valuable information and perspective. You cannot argue on principle that diversity is a good thing while simultaneously arguing that it can be a bad thing. This is an obvious contradiction. It changes the meaning of the argument from "we've discovered a fundamental truth" to "we'd like you to act a certain way" and that glosses over the outstanding implicit request, by the existence of a status quo, for you to act a certain way.
If the demand is to act a certain way, it’s only that the demand is to accept others who are different in a way that doesn’t actually harm anyone and foster an environment where no one person is unreasonably limited based on factors like being black or being a parent through thoughtless setup of the working environment.
The diversity of thought thing is always strange to me because it implies the only diversity of thought that matters is the thought to discriminate against others or the thought to put one’s head in the sand and ignore implicit discriminatory factors. Notice you totally ignored that the professor could’ve just written about accessibility, but the professor implicitly apparently does not consider accessible labs to be merit-based or something, because he argues the only solution is to sue since DEI is so against his meritocracy position.
The paradox is about unlimited tolerance, and the specific intolerance which aims to remove the liberty of thought. A society can (and should) harbor any kind of tolerance and intolerance, but must draw a line where forces grow which plan to remove this liberty, because then the tolerance ends anyway. But if you start becoming intolerant for any topic and reason, then you've already lost the tolerance.
Moderation (in the sense of temperance) as a meta-ethical principle has an exceedingly long pedigree, starting with Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics. Every virtue he describes is a mean between two extremes; courage lies between cowardice and recklessness, for example.
TL;DR: Every virtue has a “oops you went too far” failure mode, this doesn’t make it “self-contradictory”.
Have you heard of linguistics? Language changes all the time. Languages changes constantly. The word silly once meant "blessed by God".
Like, this is so obvious and so well known that I just have to assume you're trolling here.
I do not think that language operations happen of their own. I see corporate messing with language. I see BlackRock enforcing diversity and other things. I see corporate ideological parades to show that they are with the common folk. In reality they are brainwashing people.
I do not see language change organically. I see organizations prohibiting certain words, suggesting certain words. All in the name of "X".
It all reminds me of religion. Reminds me of computer logic. If you say "X" you are a good person. If you do not say "X" you are a bad person. Language is a powerful thing. I feel as if one tampered with it.
I think you're referring to words with political meaning, so I won't rant about the word "literally".
There are people who insist that some words must change their meanings, and that other words must be entirely abandoned, because they see language as shaping how people think, and so by changing language, they hope to steer the way that people think. Steering the way that people think is indistinguishable from political campaigning, as far as I can see; so I see the blacklisting etc. of words as a kind of political campaigning by the back door.
I find these word-games offensive. I don't want to offend people, so I try not to use terms that are considered offensive. But they don't give up; "negroe" became "black" became "african-american" and so on. I've lost patience.
And I have a strong sense that these word-games are a substitute for persuading people; like, persuasion seems to have failed, so let's manipulate them by changing the language. I hate the sense that I'm being manipulated.
I suspect the reasons for change would be insufficient to sway a majority. I suspect this is why the reasons aren't examined.
Originally there was an idea that a group with completely homogenous thoughts and opinions would lack innovation and problem solving ability. Ironically, the meaning of "diversity" has been corrupted to the point that it now requires homogenous thoughts and opinions.