I have found that reactionary positions are not good ones and contain people who don't know what they want, only what they are opposed to.
Do they? A lot of the benefits of DEI policies are simply more quotas for people who were already well off and capable of gainful employment, where it's more inter-elite competition than anything.
But what of the actually underprivileged? I can't fathom a way in which forbidding teachers from keeping order in class (because discipline problems are unevenly distributed, and thus racist - I wish I was kidding) helps actual minority kids from genuinely underprivileged situations. Instead, the teachers are mandated to aid and abet the very dysfunctions that keep them down.
Or what's shown in this tweet? https://twitter.com/FreeBlckThought/status/17085822241767754...
Active recommendation that "Schools should NOT 'encourage students to change their behavior or families to do more things that were like white families do, like reading to their children or adopting a growth mindset'"
These are upper class ideologues adopting nice-sounding, feelgood ideas, inflicting them on genuinely underprivileged people, and won't themselves have to pay for the consequences of these beliefs. The poor black kids will pick up the tab.
A friend of mine commented on the video that: "People who really, actually hate minorities and want to destroy their children's futures must feel so frustrated that teachers' unions, Ed schools, and school bureaucracies have left them with nothing more to do. Clearly, the point of education is to keep kids doing what they were already doing that was working so well."
These very same education people will, if asked, swear that poverty causes dysfunctions and bad outcomes, but we should never ever try to drag people out of those dysfunctions.
This is what I meant above: The politics are the point, and this shit is a disaster, as far as I can tell. I couldn't imagine better policies to tear people down if I tried. And the teaching establishment gets lauded for it.
And this is just the stuff disguised as kindness, or born of misplaced kindness. It's not getting into the actively hateful side of their culture, because they have carte blanche to spread hate, if the target is right.
The Smithsonian—*The Smithsonian*—did the same thing. Three years later I still can't believe it. <https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/artic...>
It's true rainbow activist types use sexual orientations and minorities as shields when their politics get criticized, as already seen above.
If people say "listen to gay people" they hardly mean say, UK writer Douglas Murray or the activist group Gays Against Groomers.
If people say to listen to black people, I'm quite sure they don't mean economist Thomas Sowell.
If they say transpeople, they definitely don't mean Scott Newgent of "What is a Woman?" fame.
But they don't mean Newgent either. All these people have the correct identity groups, but they're no-nos because they have the wrong politics. The DEI people clamoring for better representation definitely don't want offices staffed with Sowells and Murrays. Because the identity is just a shield, and the politics is the point, as eg. Rep. Ayanna Pressley put when she said they need "more black faces willing to be a black voice" - again, Sowell certainly is black and has a voice, but Pressley meant having the correct politics to count as representative.
Wanting less DEI is wanting less of a certain kind of politics, not wanting less people of whatever sexual orientation or skin colour. Because the politics is the point.