Who cares about diversity, inclusion and equity?

published Jul 14, 2022, last modified Jul 15, 2022

The most passionate advocates for these ideas observably want the exact opposite of them in practice.

Who cares about diversity, inclusion and equity?
The woman portrayed here exemplifies Michael's conclusion perfectly.

From Michael Huemer's excellent analysis:

Of course, none of the above predictions are borne out: the current practice of affirmative action has none of these features that you would expect if its proponents actually valued diversity. Conclusion: By and large, they don’t care about diversity. They’re just lying, in a really transparent way, because they think it gives them a patina of legal legitimacy.

You might object that some of the above features should only be expected if diversity were the sole rationale for affirmative action. Maybe diversity is just one rationale among many. Briefly, I’ll just say that I don’t see any indication at all that most affirmative action proponents value diversity. It’s not just that, e.g., they prioritize AA for black Americans over AA for conservatives. It’s that they have no interest whatsoever in idea-based AA; indeed, most would be aggressively opposed to it. Similarly for foreigners: as far as I can tell, woke AA proponents, controlling for race, show approximately zero interest in whether a person grew up in a different culture. Etc.


This illustrates my general view that the Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity movement is Orwellian: it's the opposite of what it says it is. “Diversity, inclusion, and equity” refers to ideological uniformity, exclusion, and discrimination.

From the Google/Damore lawsuit:

“We want to be inclusive of people not ideas” one employee identified as Alon Altman wrote in a message included in the lawsuit. Damore says that sentiment was backed up at an Inclusion and Diversity Summit he attended in June, when he was told by Google employees the company does not value “viewpoint diversity,” but actively strives for “demographic diversity.”

I hope it is crystal clear — Michael Huemer's conclusion (in bold above) is absolutely justified.