A blunt, clumsy move, that will do nothing to slow the takeover of education, that has already progressed from merely implicit discrimination [1] to official, explicit discrimination [2].
[1] 82 percent admitted that they would be at least a little bit prejudiced against a conservative [job] candidate [..] Despite equal methodological strengths, the studies that went against the liberal worldview were criticized and rejected, and those that went with it were not. - https://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bi...
You should distinguish between "primary cause" and "primary spreaders" ("primary" because there is rarely only one). Does the virus starting in the wilds of Africa have any bearing on whether promiscuous sex helps spread it?
> For instance, if you have the belief that men and women should not be educated in the same classroom together, or that women should not be educated at all, that's a political opinion. If you want to be a teacher, that opinion turned into practice could be problematic for our business because >50% of our customers are female.
Was there a big problem with professors instituting sex- and race-segregated classrooms, that necessitated filtering them out with diversity statements? There must have been, since in one instance, a pool of 893 candidates was narrowed down to 214 only on the basis of how convincing their DEI statements were [1].
Imagine that - a full 76% of candidates were some kind of segregationists (that's the kind of person you claim DEI statements are meant to exclude, right?). And that's in academia, in California - the most liberal of the most liberal.
> how many DEI statements have you actually personally read?
None. But I have read one set of rating criteria [2]. Candidates that merely do "what is already expected of staff" [3] regarding diversity (I.e. what you claim is the goal of DEI statements) are given the lowest scores.
[3] Only mentions activities that are already the expectation of faculty as evidence of commitment and involvement (for example, "I always invite and welcome students from all backgrounds to participate in my research lab, and in fact have mentored several women. [..] Describes only activities that are already the expectation of Berkeley faculty (mentoring, treating all students the same regardless of background, etc).
> It is to filter out people who haven't put sufficient thought into incorporating diversity into their teaching practice, no matter who they are. This is important to universities because professors necessarily encounter a diverse classroom.
Please be honest. What happens if they do put "sufficient thought" into it, but come to the wrong conclusions? What if they didn't put any thought into it at all, and just parrot various "diversity is strength" talking points, and their contributions to diversity are limited to ethnocentrism, such as a Latino candidate working with the Latin American Student Organization, helping their co-ethnics?
> Issues of race, gender identity, and sexual orientation are important for a professor to consider so that they may create a safe learning environment for all students.
Those statements require much more than just competence in making a "safe" environment (Isn't that the job of campus security? What kind of safety do you expect professors to provide?). From the open letter of Abigail Thompson, professor of mathematics at UC Davis:
Why is it a political test? Politics are a reflection of how you believe society should be organized. Classical liberals aspire to treat every person as a unique individual, not as a representative of their gender or their ethnic group. The sample rubric dictates that in order to get a high diversity score, a candidate must have actively engaged in promoting different identity groups as part of their professional life.... Requiring candidates to believe that people should be treated differently according to their identity is indeed a political test...The idea of using a political test as a screen for job applicants should send a shiver down our collective spine.... - https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201911/rnoti-p1778.pdf
> credentials which we liberals have been making steadily more stringent by doing our best to excommunicate racists, male chauvinists, homophobes, and the like.
They're excommunicating a lot more than just those:
> It's unjust to discriminate against a young graduate today, and have them pay the price for bygone injustice.
That implies the price will ever be paid (and perish the thought that you get a discount if your ancestors fought or died for the Union during the Civil War, or were on the "right side of history" in any other conflict).
When those who think remotely like you are driven out of the halls of economic and political power*, do you think they will look at the state of things and say: "You know what, we've achieved enough diversity. It's time to stop discriminating against whites"?
Even before clicking on the story, I knew there would be a "gun-related homicide" vs. "gun ownership" graph, and not an "all homicide" vs. "gun ownership" graph. Do we want to minimize all homicide, or only gun homicide, and don't care about people killed by other means? (It goes without saying that any human right that increases homicide rate should be abolished /s)
Sort of. For an example that's not exactly worker rights, Hungary has a fertility rate of 1.52 births/woman, far below the replacement rate of 2.1. Yet when the right-wing government enacted policies to increase it, it was attacked as "xenophobic" [1] and that it "reeks of the 1930s" [2].
It is part of a trend of delegitimizing any kind of favoritism of a country toward its own people.
Would equal representation achieve a 50/50 split? The article doesn't say, but I am skeptical that the part of southern Ontario covered by this union is 50% "Indigenous, Black or racialized".
> aimed at improving the representation of Indigenous, Black and racialized teachers
Globally, whites are a minority. But since that's becoming true of more and more places locally in the US and Canada as well, the term "minority" is being phased out in favor of "racialized". "Marginalized", "minoritized", and "historically underrepresented" serve the same function - sufficiently flexible and ambiguous that they can always exclude whites, without having to openly say "non-white", or admitting that whites are a racial group.
> Your job is gone due to automation, immigration, or globalization? It's entirely reasonable to reach for the conservative button to make things go back. Populists promising your job back is an appealing message.
Much like the left-right spectrum muddies things, so does the limited choice of political parties. Consider that (mostly) the only ones promising to bring back jobs/protect local industry are on the right, while the left sees this as something nasty and nativist, that just shouldn't be done. So even if you disagree with the rest of the right's platform, many will vote for them anyway, since the left's promise of turning your country into nothing but an economic and social platform on which you have to compete with the whole world makes them too nervous, despite the social safety net supposed to protect them. With their economic and social status dramatically diminished, how long will the safety net hold?
> Well, 1. and 2. is about contracts between McDonalds and their franchisees, so if a franchise owner feels unfairly harmed by this restriction, then they can sue McDonalds, it's not something about which Kytch should be able to sue Taylor.
A contract between two parties can unfairly harm a 3rd party. Especially if one of the two parties is abusing its market power to push anticompetitive clauses. For example requiring "authorized" car mechanics to buy only overpriced Ford-branded repair tools. This way Ford uses its car marketshare to push into the repair tool market. Tool manufacturers that don't have a car manufacturer backing them simply can't compete.
Of course Ford would probably argue that the markets are related, and that it has a legitimate interest in ensuring its mechanics use adequate tools. That only its own tools qualify as good enough is just a big coincidence..
[1] 82 percent admitted that they would be at least a little bit prejudiced against a conservative [job] candidate [..] Despite equal methodological strengths, the studies that went against the liberal worldview were criticized and rejected, and those that went with it were not. - https://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bi...
[2] Diversity Statements Required for One-Fifth of Academic Jobs - https://www.schoolinfosystem.org/2021/11/11/study-diversity-...