The original point of DEI was to get colleges and companies to stop turning down potential employees who are qualified based on things such as race and gender. Even things such as a hard to read name can result in the application instantly thrown in the trash. Now you could argue that its no longer necessary for such policies but you need to show proof that hiring practices are improved but good luck since we all know its still largely arbitrary. Imagine the US today if the government didnt force desegregation of schools.
Yet they'll continue to insist that it gives unqualified applicants an unfair advantage, despite the fact that this is exactly what the old system was doing for people from demographic majorities. They simply want their old advantage back. Or to put it another way, when one is accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
Thats speculation with alternative history. Highly doubt US could pretend to be amongst the western nations and still keep segregation around in the modern day. My hunch is that culture leads to regulation not the other way around, and the culture was coming around on its own.
I have a transgender female friend who transitioned on-the-job. Before living full-time, however, she had perfected a feminine voice that was a polar opposite of her male voice. It was truly amazing to hear, that these two distinct voices were the same person. Once she began living full-time, technical support vendors were completely unaware that she was the same person they had been dealing with for years. Based on her new name and her voice, they simply assumed it was a new person in that role. She never experienced any problems with the vendors when she had been living as a male, they always treated her with respect and never questioned her judgment on issues. Once she started communicating with them as a female, suddenly they were rude, condescending and treated her like she didn't know what she was doing. They were snide and didn't cooperate. One day, after being sick of the way she was being treated during a call, she told the vendor, "just a moment, I'm going to get a colleague to handle this." She put the vendor on hold, waited 2 minutes, then picked up the line with her male voice. Instantly, they began cooperating with her despite her addressing the issue in the same exact manner and with the same exact information. At the end of the call, the vendor said, "I'm glad that dingbat went and tracked you down, she didn't know what the hell she was doing." Gender bias in the workplace is VERY real.
They act like without DEI, hiring practices are totally merit based. As a manager in the corporate world for 20 years I can assure you that’s not the case. Without DEI, you get the good ole boys club. Not only will they not hire outside of their group but they’ll cover for each other. When leadership is all in in-group, it’s a menace.
Everybody is always claiming that white men are all privileged but nobody has ever actually proven this claim. Cherry picking white CEO's or presidents doesn't mean that all or even most white men have it better than others in society. We are normal people like everyone else, and when DEI policies are put forward to give others special treatment over us, of course we are going to resent it
All of Sam's points to the caller are 100% right, that the privileges are overwhelming apparent. YET, I can attest as someone who grew up in a conservative family, grew up in a politically conservative state (Texas) and attended a conservative school (in Alabama)--and even though I always personally ended up in left-wing circles--that conservatives WILL without a doubt in my mind BLOW OFF every single argument like this in an ignorant series of gradually more racist takes. It's not necessarily in this order but basically follows like this. "we already have equality in this country" "My family was always good to all colors and creeds" "I worked really hard to get what I achieved" "You're just being brainwashed by woke/progressive/left propaganda" "don't you worry about white people becoming a minority in this country?" "Listen, some people are just more capable than others, they've had plenty of time to prosper but some people are just incapable of pulling themselves out of poverty" It always seems to me that the failure to recognize privilege stems from a fundamentally flawed view of history. Case in point- many conservatives revere Teddy Roosevelt, even though his domestic policies are completely antithetical to conservative policies, environmentally and economically
There's also a pretty sizeable amount of motivated reasoning - there's material benefit for the majority class in convincing themselves and others that minorities aren't hampered because it leaves more opportunity for that class.
@@bosstowndynamics5488 makes sense when you think about it. When the playing field is filled and controlled mostly with people that are like you, you have an advantage
Yep. Now, can you even count the number of times that white people you barely knew or had literally just met have said slurs in front of you as they assumed that b/c you're white, you also use those slurs (never around POC, though). I can't count the number of white people that have claimed not to be racists but use slurs... Then, they try to justify it by, as you said, using more racism... Often, the "There's black people, and then, there's [slur].". It drives me batty.
@@shereemcardell3352 He hated conservatism in the Republican Party so much, he deliberately sandbagged Taft in his infamous Bull Moose run. Not that he liked Wilson, but he despised the air Taft and his ilk breathed.
On the question of DEI, businesses implement it because there is evidence that having a team from a lot of different backgrounds improves efficiency, results in products that can be marketed to more people, and reduces the costs associated with employee turnover. It isn't just about hiring women, gays, and minorities, it's also about hiring people of all ages and different levels of education. Companies do it to make more money, and it has the added benefit of making people feel valued. Unfortunately, people who never stop thinking about wokeness and how they get shafted for being white really do believe that there's a plot to take away their racism.
My male spouse and I (female) work the same job. He was immediately approached for professional development, they even fought to try to get him higher pay. I was put on perpetual performance improvement plans and then written up for “not obeying a direct action fast enough”. Almost all the men in our office are in management and almost all the women are in support/technician roles. It’s pretty obvious that there is disparity in the workplace still.
Is it, though? Conservatism in itself is fundamentally about avarice and repressing accountability, which are things that people naturally want to do/have. I think that's what the populist appeal of conservatism is🤔 "why should I have to sacrifice xyz, or care about xyz if I'm getting what I want?" That seems like something a massive majority of people could subscribe to either because it's inherent or something that is developed the longer you live in most societies.
@odorutori well conservatism is deeply rooted in capitalism, right? So most people don't want to pay more for ethically sourced clothes either because they can't afford to (valid, that's the society they live in) or because they don't see why they should have to because it's more expensive meaning they may own less clothes? People generally don't want to pay higher taxes because they believe they should have more disposable income and that where their taxes go generally don't benefit them, even though its the opposite for the majority. I don't live in america but you guys don't even have a public national health service? It doesn't take much to see the general opinion on liberalism/socialism in the Western world is...love/hate, and that's probably where it's most beloved. Bearing in mind outside of the Western world, there's a lot of religious and traditional conservatism as the conditions for those countries are vastly different to US or Europe. I live in the UK, but I was born and partly raised in Zambia, lol. I don't like conservatism for those reasons. "Why do I have to give something up for the greater good?" I've seen firsthand how easily people are bought and corrupted.
I absolutely hate what they did to New College in FL, basically a hostile takeover. It was once one of the best liberal arts schools in the state, now it's trying to be the 'Hillsdale of the south'
They still have universities in florida? why? (I'm being funny. I'm really sorry about your university nosediving into hell but honestly thats the most florida thing to happen)
Got it. So scientific study with learned experts who have published in the peer reviewed literature, exposure to people from other cultures/religions, and generally expanding your knowledge of literature, art, and the world in general = indoctrination = bad. But ACTUAL indoctrination is just peachy keen, as long as it is conservative/right wing indoctrination. It's not college education they object to. It's education in general.
It's just part of their strategy. Conservative thinkers know that keeping a group of people ignorant lets you convince someone of a lot of things once they have incorrect priors. Sell them on the illusory beauty of the historical moment, and then convince them that that historical moment can be recreated today.
@ -- Yep. Conservatives, and religious extremists of all stripes, depend on keeping their followers in the dark to avoid any inconvenient questions they might ask.
I've been saying this for years. If it's funded by the American taxpayer, we get should it for free and we get royalties on it. Research is time consuming and difficult, and the American people fund the research by the public schools, the college grants, research grants, the infrastructure, etc. We should have the greatest claim to it.
Palpatine at least had to masquerade as loving democracy. American fascists have the plate handed to them by having their opponent be called "The Democrats". They can renounce democracy on its face, and their troglodyte followers will screech "we are a republic!" in response, blithely ignorant of their actions and its consequences.
It's almost as if they'll say anything they have to in all situations and the refusal of media to attack them on this is complicity. People really need to understand that the pedantry of these people towards their opposition while never using words correctly is a tactic. Unfortunately a lot of people have no idea what words mean and are just easily impressed with big sounds.
If people want a republic, then thats populist. Other populist movements want a dictatorship, which truly shows that not all populist movements are created equal.
@@IDF692free speech , why is it that free speech from Ben Shapiro sounds like the same free speech from every other maga , is he is such a free thinker , why does he sound like a parrot of trump .
@@IDF692 freedom of speech is good. some speech made freely is harmful, however. Ben Shapiro makes harmful statements, and we are under no obligation to allow his harm into our lives.
One area where privilege raises its head and gives a huge advantage and isn't really talked about is the allowance of character witnesses at the sentencing stage of a trial. That advantage is patently clear if a rich kid is found guilty of a crime and his family are able to rustle up a flock of lawyers, doctors, judges, etc, to say that he's a stellar young man with a huge, honourable career in front of him and that for him to face the justice he deserves would be a travesty. The poor are so much less likely to be able to come up with these type of witnesses that have elevated standing in the eyes of the community and they suffer grievously by comparison. As to privilege at university level, when I was at law school in Australia a mate of mine was constantly on the brink of being expelled for not producing assignments and some other misdemeanours. He was a smart guy and a great drinking companion, but not a model student. Then a year or so out from graduation, when talent scouts from law firms, the public service, etc were snapping up legal prospects, he was given a prestigious job as a sort of paid intern with a Supreme Court judge, despite his history. Coming from a high flying family didn't seem to hurt his prospects. There is a way in which that helps, that isn't to do with connections, but with family expectation. I was a mature age student, with a past of having done a lot of travel and all sorts of jobs, but most of the students came from middle-upper class backgrounds and life up to then had been an apprenticeship for success. The best schools, coaching for everything they did, the best computers... everything. So in a sense they were the best people for almost any legal job available.... they'd been training all their lives. But they had a massive head start that would carry them through life.
I have a teacher currently that constantly cries about how "my previous school called me racist because I am a tTrump supporter" then goes on to say aAabic people want to kill us, defend confederate statues, said to a black student "you must be on cp time" when they were late, said he "didnt have a job because he saw Indian people walking out of where he was applying" this is his first semester. on top of that he is a shittttt teacher who doesn't know anything yet somehow has a phd and students call him out on his shit all the time. the other veteran in the class tell him to stop all the time.
Maybe my university is the exception but at my school most textbooks at the very least have an online option and the online option is usually at most 50 dollars. Which is still a lot, but definitely not as insane as a 500 dollar textbook. Also I kinda already got a taste of the Atlas shrugged garbage in my public highschool because we had to read Anthem by Ayn Rand.
Everybody is always claiming that white men are all privileged but nobody has ever actually proven this claim. Cherry picking white CEO's or presidents doesn't mean that all or even most white men have it better than others in society. We are normal people like everyone else, and when DEI policies are put forward to give others special treatment over us, of course we are going to resent it!
13:43 He says "seize their endowments" Endowments are not the same as grants. Endowmwnts are from private entities. If I create an emsowment for a university, the government has no right to seize those funds.
New College where faculty vacancies cannot be filled, test scores of applicants have fallen steeply, funds for teaching cut to pay for a new athletics program, and academic students shunted out of college accommodation to make way for athletes.
@@ahahaha3505 Same in many Western countries over the past decades their wish to replace, rational, free thinking creatives and those who think outside of the box with dumbed down tribal football/sports culture.
Everyone knows that it’s not merit, it’s built into the advice people give for getting jobs. Do any of these things have to do with how good you will be at your job? - Build your network - It’s not what you know, it’s who you know - First impressions mean everything - Bring your resume to interviews, firm handshake, dress nicely - Send a follow-up email These are very good pieces of advice for applying to jobs that I’ve gotten, but they have barely anything to do with how good I’ll be at the job
You can't get an interview these days, because a crappy AI software tossed you resume into a trash pile. Ask me how I know - my kid with IQ over 145 can't get a free internship for 4 years.
100%. Meritocracy, like aristocracy, is inherited. That fact is obvious in Silicon Valley. I've been at several tech companies that offered internships to high school kids. I might walk into work one day and find a group of 15-16 year olds working on who-knows-what - kids who are almost always connected to the company in some way, whether they were children of employees or whose parents are friends of the founder or one of the executives or whatever. I don't have a problem with the kids. They're always were respectful, smart, and deserving, but it's obvious that these kinds opportunities aren't available to most other high school kids. Then they go on to attend an elite university, and by the time they graduate, their resumes are already much stronger than their peers.
@@isaacwolford I'm not really passing moral judgement on Meritocracy - only pointing out that it is inherited. Because if we acknowledge that it's a function of inheritance, then we can't justifiably argue that people "deserve" their lot in life - that the wealthy deserve to be wealthy and the poor deserve to live in poverty.
@@isaacwolford what do you when that ancestor who was "thinking wisely" was what was essentially a glorified bandit? Capitalism began when public lands were sold off to private persons for profit. In the UK it was the Enclosure Acts and Poor Acts, in the US it was the indigenous genocides and things like Homestead Act. Or more (relatively) recently you had the GI Bill which discriminated against non-whites during what was the most prosperous era for Americans.
The government should take back subsides and all profits gained by intellectual property developed by public investment. Companies like SpaceX and Tesla wouldn't be able to exist without corporate welfare.
It's very clear what these people have against higher learning. Education is threatening the hold that ignorance and religion have over people. As people gain an education beyond 12th grade, they tend to lean more toward a liberal mindset and all that that mindset entails, especially having more liberal political views and less adherence to religious dogma.
Yes far right groups have been sublimely planning this in all western countries for a long time, even the corporate Neo-liberal media have stooped to appeal to the lowest common denominator while pushing the views and fears of the billionaire classes aka pop news. Blatant anti-intellectualism has been on the rise ever since I was a kid in the 1970's many have had to dumb themselves down as children or else be a social outcast. We live in an age were intelligent people are ignored TL,DR effect over the "keep it simple" types. Vibes and feelings that confirm personal bias based on only half the story that they heard, or read somewhere. The "don't look up" movie was right on point.
4:45 Sam says, "Everyone know that's not the case." I don't think everyone knows that at all. We live in an era at the end of decades of successful conservative & neoliberal economics propaganda. People do not understand the effects of capital accumulation through generations.
If Ivy League schools are problematic, must we "reeducate" JD Vance, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, Elise Stefanik. Kevin Kiley, Mike Pompeo, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, etc.? College enrollments are down because tuition keeps rising and student financial aid is decreasing.
That's part of the goal: to ensure that only the wealthy, who are already ideologically on-board with these designed curricula, get the education. Keep in mind that for over half a century, a degree was intended to secure a career, not to produce an informed, educated citizen.
I find the contrast between the first part of this clip ‘DEI is not fair because it lacks merit’ to the ‘controlled burn’ metaphor that seems like a blanket purge without regard for merit, just breathtaking.
america is at this point that makes me think none of them have ever had education, you can't have half the population educated letting the other uneducated half run things, you just have 1 stupid side that thinks they're educated versus 1 side that's too stupid for words. If you let the stupid people win and control your life, you are also incredibly stupid, that's where america is right now. A bunch of idiots blaming each other for it but it's all ofthem together that have produced the reality of current day america, full of terrorists and criminals that it is.
I am a professor of Political Science and History. I have NEVER believed it was my responsibility to take a stance. I have ALWAYS maintained a neutral position. I present all sides of a topic and allow students to form their own opinions based on the information provided. I loathe how academia picks sides. It's not our job to do so. It's never been.
So when someone has a heinous opinion you don't have facts you can teach them that might cause them to reconsider? Even without resorting to sharing your opinion, you can fight right wing nonsense.
If it's any comfort, this is not a new phenomenon among young people. I attended a very diverse, overwhelmingly left-leaning high school in the late '00s. We used to have whole-school discussions in the auditorium and I'll never forget the one on affirmative action. They asked us to go to one side of the room or the other depending on whether or not we supported such policies. Only about five of us were on the supporting side. I was the only white person and the only middle class person. That shocked me; I had no idea it was _that_ unpopular. Even the other supporters, most of whom were friends of mine, were baffled as to why I would support anything like affirmative action. I'm sure the entire school thought I was just virtue signaling or something, lol. This experience left me with the impression that 1) people associate affirmative action exclusively with race, despite the fact that white women have benefitted from it more than any other demographic and 2) affirmative action is unpopular among people of all backgrounds, even young people on the left. EDIT: I know there's a lot more to DEI initiatives than stuff like affirmative action, but I think they're perceived roughly the same way by the general public.
People don't even seem to know what DEI is. It's not even affirmative action, it's not quotas, it's about making places less hostile to minorities. "Equity" arguably is just a fancy word for "fairness." It's so depressing that the success at dismantling affirmative action has successfully led to a continuation of the same rhetoric being used to dismantle even more tepid protections for minorities.
DEI, wokeness, socialism etc are just buzzwords/phrases now. the right wing has successfully devalued the original meaning and intent down to "stuff FoxNews told me to dislike"
Famously Bill Gates went to a private high school that was rich enough to give their students access to a computer, his mother sat on a board with a director of IBM who mentioned that they were developing a home computer but didn’t have an operating system.
DEI was meant to counter the status quo of white-normativity (where white people in media alone are supposed to reflect everything as the expectation or norm with societal reflection and that non-white people are supposed to aspire toward it. Same can be applied with heteronormativity. ) Conservatives internalize this and think that its hemogenic white establishment was correct before "DEI", but for companies, it was to help their outreach to other demographic groups selling the optics of accessibility with representation of their demographic in marketing. It was to expand their reach. Conservatives being racist, synonymize merit = white men based on ideology alone. Also, the myth of meritocracy should be apparent with the fact most white republicans are rich, and come from rich backgrounds, who use money to get in and around things or are heavily astro-turfed.
I was listening to this in the background and only gradually become aware of the outrageous things this guy is saying so I didn't hear who this guy is. As for DEI I think we could effectively talk back to these fools if we renamed it as talent scouting. Say that there a lot of very smart and talented people out there in places/groups who don't usually apply to our schools so we are going out to find them. Might work.
That's what DEI *should * be an when it's doing that, great! ... But it too often comes packaged with weird trainings and land acknowledgements and awkward notions of privilege that don't meet reality. Then it's measured, invariably, by how many not-cis-white-men you've hired (everyone else counts). Did we expect white men to not notice?
Know what it is...DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and it's a philosophy and culture that aims to embrace and support people from all backgrounds. The three components of DEI are: Diversity The presence of differences in human identity, such as race, age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, and more. Equity The fair distribution of resources, opportunities, and access so that everyone has what they need to succeed. Inclusion The intentional effort to ensure that everyone feels valued and included in decision-making and community. This includes welcoming differences, respecting perspectives, and ensuring everyone feels a sense of belonging. DEI is often grouped together because they are interconnected and have the greatest impact when combined. Some examples of DEI in the workplace include: avoiding gendered terms, being mindful of cultural differences, and using inclusive greetings.
There's a great real-time example of this privilege in a clip from a college course at Harvard. They have a course called "justice" that you can stream on TH-cam (taught brilliantly by Michael Sandel, an underrated thinker imo). He mentions to the class how studies have found that first-born kids tend to enjoy outsized success in life, then he asks the giant lecture hall for a show of hands, whom among them are first born. Must've been 80% or something. Even the 'meritocracy' boosters in the class pretty much shut up at that point.
But merit still plays a MAJOR roll. They committed hundreds of hours and extreme dedication to get there (Harvard). Yes, some people go along ways because of money or family connections, but the vast majority of people that are considered reasonably successful are successful because they dedicated their time and effort to grow and become better at their profession. True meritocracy is a system that does NOT allow for rich people to just pay their way through things. Instead, true meritocracy should make it possible for anyone who is willing to dedicate their time and effort to their goals, be able to succeed.
@@isaacwolford Yes of course merit plays some role, the debate is between whether it's the WHOLE picture or only part. Everybody's lot is a mixture of personal choices and situation, and it's impossible to parse those for a given person, so why not improve the situational aspect 'best we can? Sandel himself has called for changing enrollment to be a mixture of "merit" (yes you need to perform so well on GPA and tests etc.) and a lottery system, where a certain number of random people past the meritocratic bar are randomly selected. Point is, saying 'luck' or the system plays any role in a person's circumstances is like heresy to the right. And it's...delusional
@@klauterj but it’s already obvious that luck plays a part as well. Some people are born with certain predispositions or natural intelligence that can give them many advantages over others. Some just happen to be born into a family with parents who highly value knowledge and education, which results in them starting their careers as children. Life isn’t fair. I’d say that those who have put in the effort and have attained the highest achievements, should be the ones who get the Jobs, Internships, Etc. Simply setting a minimum bar such as GPA or test scores, and then using a lottery is not nearly holistic enough.
TL;DR at the bottom. I think I would say that we live in a merit-based society for some people (we're not going to talk about money and connections because that blows everything out of the water). As an example, Jake only has to go to college and get a 4 year degree to get a job, but Tanisha has to work and go to college for her degree AND be paid less for the same job, and Laura who had to learn English on top of what Tanisha did, where is the fairness? Not only is the playing field not level (some people have to work harder for the same result), but the goal, the outcome will not be valued in equal measure. Jake is essentially rewarded more for having done "less." I don't think (regular) people complaining about DEI are suffering because of DEI. It's rough for everybody right now, and twice as hard for people who every time they turn on the news, someone who shares an identity with them is being lambasted as "the problem with this country (tm)". Their actual complaints should be against the systems that cause workers harm in general. Greedflation and wage stagnation, mass layoffs, workplace abuse, automation without regard to workers, scummy hiring practices, corporate lobbying and power, etc. All of these things affect all workers. DEI and immigration are being scapedgoated as the problem to keep people from class consciousness and unionizing. When people complain about DEI, they are not approaching it from the view of "what about the people who are getting left behind?" It's always, "they got the job because of [identity]," which is usually incorrect (unless the identity is essential to a certain project* or for the ability/quota to apply for grants and government contracts/some loans**). Here's an example of what I mean. Some of those people think hiring the best person for the job means hiring someone with two double major PhDs and 20 years of experience at age 30. The reality is that past a certain point gaining more skills does not make you more competitive in hiring. So someone with the time and resources to gain those skills might actually be looked at as more of a liability because they will want higher compensation, and someone with a "tighter" skillset could be hired instead of them. If we say Jake who went back for his Master's and Laura applied for the same job, it could look like a DEI hire if they pick Laura. Jake has more skills right? But the company only needed a certain level of competency and didn't want (or couldn't afford) to pay for more. There's a few more examples of this kind of thing, but most of the time, it's just business. I don't think people should be punished for the circumstances of their birth, and I think AA and DEI were a step in the right direction. We have come a long way and I think it's time that we stop asking, "what's your identity" and start asking, "how tall is your mountain?" DEI is flawed and we need to take a more holistic approach when we are considering things that are intended to be "tiebreakers." Because as unfair as the first example is, it is also very unfair for Amanda who only had to go for 4 years to get her degree to be equally considered with Josh who worked, took care of his siblings and drug-addicted mother, and still finished his degree in 4 years. We still need to do the work for social justice, but we also need to be able to look at things critically and be willing to make adjustments. * Think consulting on for proper character portrayals or casting for media. **To be clear, this isn't a mandate and does not apply to most businesses. Many business just do this because it makes them look good which is also why a lot of the time it can seem performative. Usually, if they want the money, they have an affirmative action statement on their website/hiring materials. Additionally, most of these are usually high-turnover, low-paying, dead-end jobs too, and I literally haven't seen anyone complain about DEI at McDonald's, Walmart, or Amazon (very interesting). TL;DR: DEI was meant to reward people for overcoming hardship with opportunities for career and financial advancement. Most of the problems that people ascribe to DEI are business practices that can be largely dealt with by unionizing and good policy. DEI has left people behind and advanced people who would get along fine without it. We do need a better approach less based on identity and more on what people have overcome. Keep working towards a better world.
Also, if you support nepotism but decry things like DEI, you're very silly. A real "rules for thee but not for me" kind of person. Imo, nepotism is way worse than DEI because at least the DEI hire has to be qualified BEFORE they get hired. Nepo hires usually just get to be in leadership without experience and sometimes education. We have plenty of real world examples, especially in the upcoming presidency!
What proportion of students ever engage with politics at university in this way?? As a former STEM student living in a large intercollegiate hall in a major city, none of my peers were politically active in the way these right-wing freaks seem to imagine. The same applied to my peers studying arts subjects, languages and history. I work at a university now, and things look exactly the same. Sure, there are subjects that attract a lot of student protest, but it's not some organised movement being fed by leftist tutors. The only ones who were politically engaged in that way were...politics students, and they were only involved because they expected a career in politics.
Obviously the idea of being "created" was also a false assumption, they also had no idea of what type of world the future would be, for instance none of them could have imagined an AK47,or an RPG when talking about 'guns'.
Sam, I’d like to hear you be far more supportive and forward in your compassionate care when comfort is needed for young students alone in fascist schools. Great answer, but aloofness like that at the end is a bit rougher than the psychological state of our kiddos/adolescents/young adults today desperately need. Please pay much better sensitive care there. As a clinical psychologist, I gotta warn ya, that tinged air of aloofness delivers and receives as less than what is needed here with tact and a sense of community. They need emotional solidarity to come out in the attitude as well-emotional solidarity. Logos? Yes. 🙌🏽 Ethos? Absolutely. Pathos? Yes, yes also. Ya know, buddy? Keep up the great work! Love ya, Sammy!
As a Catholic and a historian, I'm embarrassed that Kevin Roberts is a Catholic and a historian. He is a disgrace to his faith and a disgrace to his profession.
It's not new. 13 years ago I was doing a college course in economics (remember, 2008 and euro debt crisis still not fully over). The professor explained in the same seminar how Keynes saved the economy after the great depression but also how Keynes was really bad, how we should go for massive austerity and how stuff like the Laffer curve (utter bullshit) worked. The thing is, at the time when you're a student who just wants to pass. You're not encouraged to question stuff.
I sympathize. Thank you for your service. I am never in a non-aware state, when the anti communist rich scream for Keynsian stimulus and call it necessary to save our economy
What's even more hilarious is rural and low income americans also qualify for scholarships and grants through DEI. It's quite literally the E in DEI which is equity. Like legitimately the only people that don't qualify for scholarships from DEI is the super rich whom legit already could pay for full tuition yet Republicans convince their own voters that not only DEI is somehow "discrimination" but that "No true Republican" no matter how poor should accept financial aid assistance through them while working on ways that would take away their access from pell grants let alone scholarships 😂😂😂. It's completely fucking delusional.
@@joshuahall1581 A major part of the problem, viewing from the inside as someone from such a background but doesn't look like it, and trying to do better for my own students now, is that the academic advisers who are tasked with getting students access to these resources (and these students won't know about them, or how to go about getting them if they do know) have an overly narrow search image when it comes to who they advise to do what. This is particularly true for the larger regional universities. They're very good at connecting female students or people of color, and they've been well trained to do so. But in the process of ramming hundreds of students through mandatory counseling per semester, they skip over that white student who may qualify due to low EFC but they didn't think to check. Or they won't register that the rural white male who happens to be 1st gen is also qualified for McNair. The latter was my problem. Luckily there was a faculty member that "forced" me to do ug research in her lab knowing how necessary it was for me to get into graduate school. Then there were issues that I couldn't present the research at the conference tied to the funding. As while she could hire me to work being 1st gen, the conference itself was only for females or persons of color. For a lot of people, they experience one "slight" like this and that taints their impression permanently. And on the left we are completely discouraged, socially, from bringing up these issues. So they bite us in the ass. As we see with university trends, and politics. We readily talk about how the neo-classical economics pushed out any hint of socialist education in US univ econ depts. We readily acknowledge enrollment disparities in things like engineering. But we don't talk about the fact that my last anatomy lab only had 2 males for every 20 students, and that's not a new trend. We can talk about how men will go into trades. As if that's they beginning and end of the story. But we don't ask what is the effect of having like 5 male restricted scholarships for every 95 female restricted. We completely acknowledge the necessity of supply side economics but throw it out the window when the issue is university funding as it pertains to demographics. Yet at the same time argue that more funding is needed for everyone to the extent that university should be tax funded; and it should be.
Conservative media creates a boogeyman. Gets their base to cry, complain, get offended and outraged about it. Then after a while, when that boogeyman loses its fangs, they make another one. The things they got outraged about last year and the year before that are things they don't talk about that much anymore. They find a new scarecrow to erect.
One reason education in universities might struggle is because the people going into them might had had a loss good earlier education. Perhaps after people like trump have cut funding and messed with earlier years teaching
I like your response Sam but DEI is about so much more. Quotas are illegal. Recognizing a problem and trying to correct the problem as much as possible without quotas - reaching out to underrepresented communities, creating conditions that are more welcoming - not discriminating… there is more. DEI is not quotas - not saying you are saying that but I bet his class was.
If they argue there was never discrimination, they boldly lying. If they say its not like that anymore, then it would be because of so called DEI initiatives. It's a catch 22
The right wing position (which is very popular at present in the US) is that fairness, merit, and deservedness of success or power or praise is a matter of a person's internal magical essence of deservedness or merit. It flips the idea that deserving praise or condemnation is based on one's actions and intentions, and in fact, positive intentions and actions mean that a person is putting in effort, which undermines the idea that the person has the magical positive essence. The only ones who have it are people who do not work, and who are relatively and obviously ignorant and/or depraved (i.e. not indoctrinated, in this view), and who align themselves with power and wealth regardless of what may be associated. That has to be merit for the right wing, because it is too painful to look at sociopolitical realities and context, instead of living in this essentialist fantasy world.
There was a study on DEI in the workplace. They studied hiring by race gender before /after a DEI pledge was made. There was no difference in hiring ratios in 93% of the companies that made that pledge.
Three simple questions to ask 1. When exactly did meritocracy begin ? 2. If it didn't begin yet, will getting rid of programs that are seen to hinder it, make it start? 3. If it already began, why do we believe those same programs are standing in the way of it ?
Not a very good response. DEI is about meeting people where they are at to help them achieve their full potential. It is not about making things equal. DEI done right creates diversified talent pools that are ready for the next level. People are promoted because they are the best fit for the job, not because of a protected class designation.
He pretty much explained the E for Equity in DEI. You are pretty much explaining the D for Diversity and possibly the I for Inclusion part of DEI. Both of you are not completely right or wrong in your statements. Overall, DEI is for everyone to benefit; not just the wealthy, straight, cis, white guy who has money/connections based on his family and background.
“Poor George [Bush], he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.” ― Ann Richards (...our last good Texas governor, who went on to lose to W. {sigh}...)
Funny that C-suite member of the Heritage foundation, which benefits as a “nonprofit,” is basically exempt from paying any taxes, complaining about an institution, living off the teeth of the government. As if tax law hasn’t directly benefited their exempt status.
Do any of you know as a black woman we are more educated than anyone in our workplaces. Do any of you even remember why DEI was even there? Do any of you know that those that want us out will get exactly what it’s asking. Mediocrity will be the normal way among this new workplace.
If you hoard prep stuff to where you can't walk through your house, you are deemed requiring if a therapist. If you hoard money, you get on the cover of Forbes.
One thing I love about the republican party is that they do the “facts over feelings” thing over and over again but most of thier talking points are about thier are about how they feel about dei they THINK it’s reverse racism.
The Monolopy game analogy works very good. If a player gets 100 turns, then after that another gets to play. Even while playing the same game the advantage of the first player is exponential to the amount of turns that they've had. It's willful ignorance to not acknowledge that fact.
@@Jayjames6568 they literally did a study where they used the same resume and put a white sounding name on one and an ethnic sounding name on another. Sent them to over 100 fortune 500 companies and 86% of the time they chose the white name. Just like that you mean.
@@Jayjames6568 out of 1000 applications 22% had an eastern sounding name. I say eastern because Thai last names are different than most the same with Indonesian names.
I work as a research scientist in a university, and I'd like the products of my labour to be widely accessible and fortunately in my field that's ~doable, but still, there's capitalist(ist ideological) capture in all universities with endowments. I think the equity in scientific output should be split equally four ways between central government, the funding body that funded it, the institutions supporting the research in kind or as representatives of the consensus-making institutions for the disciplines to which a particular scholar is contributing to (university, professional associations, etc), and then finally the research workers ourselves. Initially I thought to say "no, the workers should own the means of production" but assuming instead a kind of social-democracy (rather than a more Marxian democratic socialism 😅)
To be honest, though, I think science would thrive better in a world where it could all or mostly be completely open-source and collectivised. In which scenario, to speak of 'equity' doesn't really work because there's no 'profits' to capture, only really benefits to the whole community (and of course costs and risks, though these would inevitably be borne disproportionately by the workers making the decisions to take such risks, and of course there would still be all the necessary top-down regulation of safety procedures etc).
The original point of DEI was to get colleges and companies to stop turning down potential employees who are qualified based on things such as race and gender. Even things such as a hard to read name can result in the application instantly thrown in the trash. Now you could argue that its no longer necessary for such policies but you need to show proof that hiring practices are improved but good luck since we all know its still largely arbitrary.
Imagine the US today if the government didnt force desegregation of schools.
Seperate but equal would rule the day, like they wanted it.
Just means the South would be dumber than it already is.
@@bobbafett1849You mean separate & UNequal.
Yet they'll continue to insist that it gives unqualified applicants an unfair advantage, despite the fact that this is exactly what the old system was doing for people from demographic majorities. They simply want their old advantage back. Or to put it another way, when one is accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
Thats speculation with alternative history.
Highly doubt US could pretend to be amongst the western nations and still keep segregation around in the modern day.
My hunch is that culture leads to regulation not the other way around, and the culture was coming around on its own.
I have a transgender female friend who transitioned on-the-job. Before living full-time, however, she had perfected a feminine voice that was a polar opposite of her male voice. It was truly amazing to hear, that these two distinct voices were the same person. Once she began living full-time, technical support vendors were completely unaware that she was the same person they had been dealing with for years. Based on her new name and her voice, they simply assumed it was a new person in that role. She never experienced any problems with the vendors when she had been living as a male, they always treated her with respect and never questioned her judgment on issues. Once she started communicating with them as a female, suddenly they were rude, condescending and treated her like she didn't know what she was doing. They were snide and didn't cooperate. One day, after being sick of the way she was being treated during a call, she told the vendor, "just a moment, I'm going to get a colleague to handle this." She put the vendor on hold, waited 2 minutes, then picked up the line with her male voice. Instantly, they began cooperating with her despite her addressing the issue in the same exact manner and with the same exact information. At the end of the call, the vendor said, "I'm glad that dingbat went and tracked you down, she didn't know what the hell she was doing." Gender bias in the workplace is VERY real.
@@derpaderp9824Lol what this is entirely believable that it happened
@@derpaderp9824yup, username checks out
cool perk
Damn. Too bad ciswomen can't really pull that trick to just get basic respect in the workplace, they just have to live with it.
@@Michael-z5t3hpublicly mad about trans people _and_ liked your own comment, have some shame man
They act like without DEI, hiring practices are totally merit based. As a manager in the corporate world for 20 years I can assure you that’s not the case. Without DEI, you get the good ole boys club. Not only will they not hire outside of their group but they’ll cover for each other. When leadership is all in in-group, it’s a menace.
What bs
@ ?
Everybody is always claiming that white men are all privileged but nobody has ever actually proven this claim. Cherry picking white CEO's or presidents doesn't mean that all or even most white men have it better than others in society. We are normal people like everyone else, and when DEI policies are put forward to give others special treatment over us, of course we are going to resent it
@@AndrewDixon-bv6gg Prove what they said was untrue
All the incentives are not to hire white men, that doesn't actually change without DEI mandates
All of Sam's points to the caller are 100% right, that the privileges are overwhelming apparent. YET, I can attest as someone who grew up in a conservative family, grew up in a politically conservative state (Texas) and attended a conservative school (in Alabama)--and even though I always personally ended up in left-wing circles--that conservatives WILL without a doubt in my mind BLOW OFF every single argument like this in an ignorant series of gradually more racist takes. It's not necessarily in this order but basically follows like this. "we already have equality in this country" "My family was always good to all colors and creeds" "I worked really hard to get what I achieved" "You're just being brainwashed by woke/progressive/left propaganda" "don't you worry about white people becoming a minority in this country?" "Listen, some people are just more capable than others, they've had plenty of time to prosper but some people are just incapable of pulling themselves out of poverty"
It always seems to me that the failure to recognize privilege stems from a fundamentally flawed view of history. Case in point- many conservatives revere Teddy Roosevelt, even though his domestic policies are completely antithetical to conservative policies, environmentally and economically
There's also a pretty sizeable amount of motivated reasoning - there's material benefit for the majority class in convincing themselves and others that minorities aren't hampered because it leaves more opportunity for that class.
@@bosstowndynamics5488
makes sense when you think about it. When the playing field is filled and controlled mostly with people that are like you, you have an advantage
Yes, he was a socially liberal.
Yep. Now, can you even count the number of times that white people you barely knew or had literally just met have said slurs in front of you as they assumed that b/c you're white, you also use those slurs (never around POC, though). I can't count the number of white people that have claimed not to be racists but use slurs... Then, they try to justify it by, as you said, using more racism... Often, the "There's black people, and then, there's [slur].". It drives me batty.
@@shereemcardell3352 He hated conservatism in the Republican Party so much, he deliberately sandbagged Taft in his infamous Bull Moose run. Not that he liked Wilson, but he despised the air Taft and his ilk breathed.
On the question of DEI, businesses implement it because there is evidence that having a team from a lot of different backgrounds improves efficiency, results in products that can be marketed to more people, and reduces the costs associated with employee turnover. It isn't just about hiring women, gays, and minorities, it's also about hiring people of all ages and different levels of education. Companies do it to make more money, and it has the added benefit of making people feel valued.
Unfortunately, people who never stop thinking about wokeness and how they get shafted for being white really do believe that there's a plot to take away their racism.
My male spouse and I (female) work the same job. He was immediately approached for professional development, they even fought to try to get him higher pay. I was put on perpetual performance improvement plans and then written up for “not obeying a direct action fast enough”.
Almost all the men in our office are in management and almost all the women are in support/technician roles.
It’s pretty obvious that there is disparity in the workplace still.
Conservative populism is an oxymoron
Is it, though? Conservatism in itself is fundamentally about avarice and repressing accountability, which are things that people naturally want to do/have. I think that's what the populist appeal of conservatism is🤔 "why should I have to sacrifice xyz, or care about xyz if I'm getting what I want?" That seems like something a massive majority of people could subscribe to either because it's inherent or something that is developed the longer you live in most societies.
Yes, and its just "compassionate conservatism" that Bush was pushing at the start of the 2000 being rebranded yet again...
@@ribbrascalconservative populism is fascism
@@salifyanji7889 explain how people "naturally" want to have those things instead of them being conditioned, please
@odorutori well conservatism is deeply rooted in capitalism, right? So most people don't want to pay more for ethically sourced clothes either because they can't afford to (valid, that's the society they live in) or because they don't see why they should have to because it's more expensive meaning they may own less clothes? People generally don't want to pay higher taxes because they believe they should have more disposable income and that where their taxes go generally don't benefit them, even though its the opposite for the majority. I don't live in america but you guys don't even have a public national health service? It doesn't take much to see the general opinion on liberalism/socialism in the Western world is...love/hate, and that's probably where it's most beloved. Bearing in mind outside of the Western world, there's a lot of religious and traditional conservatism as the conditions for those countries are vastly different to US or Europe. I live in the UK, but I was born and partly raised in Zambia, lol. I don't like conservatism for those reasons. "Why do I have to give something up for the greater good?" I've seen firsthand how easily people are bought and corrupted.
I absolutely hate what they did to New College in FL, basically a hostile takeover. It was once one of the best liberal arts schools in the state, now it's trying to be the 'Hillsdale of the south'
They still have universities in florida? why? (I'm being funny. I'm really sorry about your university nosediving into hell but honestly thats the most florida thing to happen)
You can thank Christopher Rufo for that.
Yeah I thought they burned all the books in an effort to hide slavery , and the civil war , and Hitler , you get the picture .
Oh that was awful how DeSantis gutted that terrific school and ruined it.
@@hauz287Yes, I teach at one of the state schools in Florida. However, I worry a lot.
Got it.
So scientific study with learned experts who have published in the peer reviewed literature, exposure to people from other cultures/religions, and generally expanding your knowledge of literature, art, and the world in general = indoctrination = bad.
But ACTUAL indoctrination is just peachy keen, as long as it is conservative/right wing indoctrination.
It's not college education they object to. It's education in general.
It's just part of their strategy. Conservative thinkers know that keeping a group of people ignorant lets you convince someone of a lot of things once they have incorrect priors. Sell them on the illusory beauty of the historical moment, and then convince them that that historical moment can be recreated today.
@ -- Yep. Conservatives, and religious extremists of all stripes, depend on keeping their followers in the dark to avoid any inconvenient questions they might ask.
Wrong but thanks for playing
@@MGTOWOutlaw3888 -- the "MGTOW" in your username tells me everything I need to know. Good luck with that.
@@MGTOWOutlaw3888TakenTook is right, you are wrong, but thanks for playing.
I've been saying this for years. If it's funded by the American taxpayer, we get should it for free and we get royalties on it. Research is time consuming and difficult, and the American people fund the research by the public schools, the college grants, research grants, the infrastructure, etc. We should have the greatest claim to it.
What about all the private donors
@@canUfeelMYface they profit just like OP is implying.
This dudes implying its funded by taxpayers. I'm asking about shareholders. We can't both be right
One of the most common memes from the Heritage Foundation is "we're not a democracy, but a republic." Populist, my ass!
Palpatine at least had to masquerade as loving democracy. American fascists have the plate handed to them by having their opponent be called "The Democrats". They can renounce democracy on its face, and their troglodyte followers will screech "we are a republic!" in response, blithely ignorant of their actions and its consequences.
It's almost as if they'll say anything they have to in all situations and the refusal of media to attack them on this is complicity. People really need to understand that the pedantry of these people towards their opposition while never using words correctly is a tactic. Unfortunately a lot of people have no idea what words mean and are just easily impressed with big sounds.
Because they generally don't win the popular vote.
If people want a republic, then thats populist.
Other populist movements want a dictatorship, which truly shows that not all populist movements are created equal.
Kudos to that Texas student out there fighting the good fight, that was honestly such an endearing and hope-building call
To the privileged, equality feels like oppression.
Wow....I just LOVE that corny college sophomore cliche!!!
@@CribNotes Does not mean it is not true.
@@jasonfuller1001 Are you privileged?
@@CribNotes More than some, not as much as others.
@jasonfuller1001 Well then does equality feel like oppression to you?
that would rattle me, too. i'm thankful to that college student for being so strong.
@@IDF692free speech , why is it that free speech from Ben Shapiro sounds like the same free speech from every other maga , is he is such a free thinker , why does he sound like a parrot of trump .
@@IDF692 freedom of speech is good. some speech made freely is harmful, however. Ben Shapiro makes harmful statements, and we are under no obligation to allow his harm into our lives.
Eric trump and don jr , not meritocracy , their father not meritocracy , unless waking up rich is now merit .
One area where privilege raises its head and gives a huge advantage and isn't really talked about is the allowance of character witnesses at the sentencing stage of a trial. That advantage is patently clear if a rich kid is found guilty of a crime and his family are able to rustle up a flock of lawyers, doctors, judges, etc, to say that he's a stellar young man with a huge, honourable career in front of him and that for him to face the justice he deserves would be a travesty. The poor are so much less likely to be able to come up with these type of witnesses that have elevated standing in the eyes of the community and they suffer grievously by comparison.
As to privilege at university level, when I was at law school in Australia a mate of mine was constantly on the brink of being expelled for not producing assignments and some other misdemeanours. He was a smart guy and a great drinking companion, but not a model student. Then a year or so out from graduation, when talent scouts from law firms, the public service, etc were snapping up legal prospects, he was given a prestigious job as a sort of paid intern with a Supreme Court judge, despite his history. Coming from a high flying family didn't seem to hurt his prospects. There is a way in which that helps, that isn't to do with connections, but with family expectation. I was a mature age student, with a past of having done a lot of travel and all sorts of jobs, but most of the students came from middle-upper class backgrounds and life up to then had been an apprenticeship for success. The best schools, coaching for everything they did, the best computers... everything. So in a sense they were the best people for almost any legal job available.... they'd been training all their lives. But they had a massive head start that would carry them through life.
I have a teacher currently that constantly cries about how "my previous school called me racist because I am a tTrump supporter" then goes on to say aAabic people want to kill us, defend confederate statues, said to a black student "you must be on cp time" when they were late, said he "didnt have a job because he saw Indian people walking out of where he was applying" this is his first semester. on top of that he is a shittttt teacher who doesn't know anything yet somehow has a phd and students call him out on his shit all the time. the other veteran in the class tell him to stop all the time.
Get some recordings, I'm sure somebody could get their tuition paid in a lawsuit.
A single text book cost me $500 in 2003 at UofA. They’re fleecing students already. Why not feed them full of Atlas Shrugged bs?
At least Atlas Shrugged costs less
the funniest part about Ayn Rand is that she collected government assistance. "i hate the welfare state!" also "ooooh free money!".
@@petersulewski at least in 2012 you guys made bad arguments about objectivism but you at least tried to understand it a little bit
This is why Internet Archive exists.
Maybe my university is the exception but at my school most textbooks at the very least have an online option and the online option is usually at most 50 dollars. Which is still a lot, but definitely not as insane as a 500 dollar textbook. Also I kinda already got a taste of the Atlas shrugged garbage in my public highschool because we had to read Anthem by Ayn Rand.
This segment needs to be kept, because it's going to have to be replayed many times in the future
Yep!!
Over and over again.
Totally agree with you
Everybody is always claiming that white men are all privileged but nobody has ever actually proven this claim. Cherry picking white CEO's or presidents doesn't mean that all or even most white men have it better than others in society. We are normal people like everyone else, and when DEI policies are put forward to give others special treatment over us, of course we are going to resent it!
@@IDF692 YAWN! You are metaphorically banned from any rational society!
13:43 He says "seize their endowments" Endowments are not the same as grants. Endowmwnts are from private entities. If I create an emsowment for a university, the government has no right to seize those funds.
New College of Florida was the test subject. With no significant push back from our government. It's not just the GOP. Its Corporate American rule.
New College where faculty vacancies cannot be filled, test scores of applicants have fallen steeply, funds for teaching cut to pay for a new athletics program, and academic students shunted out of college accommodation to make way for athletes.
@@ahahaha3505 Same in many Western countries over the past decades their wish to replace, rational, free thinking creatives and those who think outside of the box with dumbed down tribal football/sports culture.
In my Accounting class, they removed the lecture of corporate social responsibilities that go beyond shareholders, though it was still on the book
Yikes
Good
@@brianernzen2509 lol good in what sense. Expand that thought
@@brianernzen2509 Might want to rethink that, all things considered. No one is beyond the reach of a genuinely determined person.
@@brianernzen2509 u r gay
Everyone knows that it’s not merit, it’s built into the advice people give for getting jobs. Do any of these things have to do with how good you will be at your job?
- Build your network
- It’s not what you know, it’s who you know
- First impressions mean everything
- Bring your resume to interviews, firm handshake, dress nicely
- Send a follow-up email
These are very good pieces of advice for applying to jobs that I’ve gotten, but they have barely anything to do with how good I’ll be at the job
You can't get an interview these days, because a crappy AI software tossed you resume into a trash pile. Ask me how I know - my kid with IQ over 145 can't get a free internship for 4 years.
That advice is also harder for marginalized people
Thanks!
100%. Meritocracy, like aristocracy, is inherited. That fact is obvious in Silicon Valley. I've been at several tech companies that offered internships to high school kids. I might walk into work one day and find a group of 15-16 year olds working on who-knows-what - kids who are almost always connected to the company in some way, whether they were children of employees or whose parents are friends of the founder or one of the executives or whatever. I don't have a problem with the kids. They're always were respectful, smart, and deserving, but it's obvious that these kinds opportunities aren't available to most other high school kids. Then they go on to attend an elite university, and by the time they graduate, their resumes are already much stronger than their peers.
So is that unjust? Or is that a result of their ancestors thinking ahead and using their resources wisely?
@@isaacwolford I'm not really passing moral judgement on Meritocracy - only pointing out that it is inherited. Because if we acknowledge that it's a function of inheritance, then we can't justifiably argue that people "deserve" their lot in life - that the wealthy deserve to be wealthy and the poor deserve to live in poverty.
@@isaacwolford what do you when that ancestor who was "thinking wisely" was what was essentially a glorified bandit? Capitalism began when public lands were sold off to private persons for profit. In the UK it was the Enclosure Acts and Poor Acts, in the US it was the indigenous genocides and things like Homestead Act. Or more (relatively) recently you had the GI Bill which discriminated against non-whites during what was the most prosperous era for Americans.
The government should take back subsides and all profits gained by intellectual property developed by public investment. Companies like SpaceX and Tesla wouldn't be able to exist without corporate welfare.
It's very clear what these people have against higher learning. Education is threatening the hold that ignorance and religion have over people. As people gain an education beyond 12th grade, they tend to lean more toward a liberal mindset and all that that mindset entails, especially having more liberal political views and less adherence to religious dogma.
Pretty much. After all, it is generally the case that the better educated someone is, the harder it is to manipulate or control them.
Yes far right groups have been sublimely planning this in all western countries for a long time, even the corporate Neo-liberal media have stooped to appeal to the lowest common denominator while pushing the views and fears of the billionaire classes aka pop news.
Blatant anti-intellectualism has been on the rise ever since I was a kid in the 1970's many have had to dumb themselves down as children or else be a social outcast.
We live in an age were intelligent people are ignored TL,DR effect over the "keep it simple" types. Vibes and feelings that confirm personal bias based on only half the story that they heard, or read somewhere. The "don't look up" movie was right on point.
And then they become so smart they think they are God's and they butcher and sterilize the kids.
Yep straight out of the authoritarian dictator handbook.
4:45
Sam says, "Everyone know that's not the case."
I don't think everyone knows that at all. We live in an era at the end of decades of successful conservative & neoliberal economics propaganda. People do not understand the effects of capital accumulation through generations.
If Ivy League schools are problematic, must we "reeducate" JD Vance, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, Elise Stefanik. Kevin Kiley, Mike Pompeo, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, etc.? College enrollments are down because tuition keeps rising and student financial aid is decreasing.
That's part of the goal: to ensure that only the wealthy, who are already ideologically on-board with these designed curricula, get the education. Keep in mind that for over half a century, a degree was intended to secure a career, not to produce an informed, educated citizen.
I find the contrast between the first part of this clip ‘DEI is not fair because it lacks merit’ to the ‘controlled burn’ metaphor that seems like a blanket purge without regard for merit, just breathtaking.
They don’t want a substitute to DEI.
So glad SOME college kids are getting their history lessons from History instead of memes.
Who needs college when there are bumper stickers and red baseball caps?
@@robertlindey2538 And Confederate statues.
america is at this point that makes me think none of them have ever had education, you can't have half the population educated letting the other uneducated half run things, you just have 1 stupid side that thinks they're educated versus 1 side that's too stupid for words. If you let the stupid people win and control your life, you are also incredibly stupid, that's where america is right now. A bunch of idiots blaming each other for it but it's all ofthem together that have produced the reality of current day america, full of terrorists and criminals that it is.
I am a professor of Political Science and History. I have NEVER believed it was my responsibility to take a stance. I have ALWAYS maintained a neutral position. I present all sides of a topic and allow students to form their own opinions based on the information provided.
I loathe how academia picks sides. It's not our job to do so. It's never been.
So when someone has a heinous opinion you don't have facts you can teach them that might cause them to reconsider? Even without resorting to sharing your opinion, you can fight right wing nonsense.
The 50 pound weight analogy was solid.
If it's any comfort, this is not a new phenomenon among young people. I attended a very diverse, overwhelmingly left-leaning high school in the late '00s. We used to have whole-school discussions in the auditorium and I'll never forget the one on affirmative action. They asked us to go to one side of the room or the other depending on whether or not we supported such policies. Only about five of us were on the supporting side. I was the only white person and the only middle class person. That shocked me; I had no idea it was _that_ unpopular. Even the other supporters, most of whom were friends of mine, were baffled as to why I would support anything like affirmative action. I'm sure the entire school thought I was just virtue signaling or something, lol.
This experience left me with the impression that 1) people associate affirmative action exclusively with race, despite the fact that white women have benefitted from it more than any other demographic and 2) affirmative action is unpopular among people of all backgrounds, even young people on the left.
EDIT: I know there's a lot more to DEI initiatives than stuff like affirmative action, but I think they're perceived roughly the same way by the general public.
Good discussion. GREAT points, Sam. "Merit does not exist in a vacuum."
Not really
People don't even seem to know what DEI is. It's not even affirmative action, it's not quotas, it's about making places less hostile to minorities. "Equity" arguably is just a fancy word for "fairness." It's so depressing that the success at dismantling affirmative action has successfully led to a continuation of the same rhetoric being used to dismantle even more tepid protections for minorities.
DEI, wokeness, socialism etc are just buzzwords/phrases now. the right wing has successfully devalued the original meaning and intent down to "stuff FoxNews told me to dislike"
Famously Bill Gates went to a private high school that was rich enough to give their students access to a computer, his mother sat on a board with a director of IBM who mentioned that they were developing a home computer but didn’t have an operating system.
DEI was meant to counter the status quo of white-normativity (where white people in media alone are supposed to reflect everything as the expectation or norm with societal reflection and that non-white people are supposed to aspire toward it. Same can be applied with heteronormativity. )
Conservatives internalize this and think that its hemogenic white establishment was correct before "DEI", but for companies, it was to help their outreach to other demographic groups selling the optics of accessibility with representation of their demographic in marketing. It was to expand their reach. Conservatives being racist, synonymize merit = white men based on ideology alone. Also, the myth of meritocracy should be apparent with the fact most white republicans are rich, and come from rich backgrounds, who use money to get in and around things or are heavily astro-turfed.
You just want to exterminate white people
A&m had students telling balck highschoolers to go back to africa when i was there in the 2010s. Its a very conservative PUBLIC university
It's just assumed that women will take maternity leave at some point. They don't have to ask, it's an automatic disadvantage.
I was listening to this in the background and only gradually become aware of the outrageous things this guy is saying so I didn't hear who this guy is.
As for DEI I think we could effectively talk back to these fools if we renamed it as talent scouting. Say that there a lot of very smart and talented people out there in places/groups who don't usually apply to our schools so we are going out to find them. Might work.
That's what DEI *should * be an when it's doing that, great! ... But it too often comes packaged with weird trainings and land acknowledgements and awkward notions of privilege that don't meet reality. Then it's measured, invariably, by how many not-cis-white-men you've hired (everyone else counts). Did we expect white men to not notice?
There are also real estate valuation that kept down minorities from capitalizing on property the own.
Know what it is...DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and it's a philosophy and culture that aims to embrace and support people from all backgrounds. The three components of DEI are:
Diversity
The presence of differences in human identity, such as race, age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, and more.
Equity
The fair distribution of resources, opportunities, and access so that everyone has what they need to succeed.
Inclusion
The intentional effort to ensure that everyone feels valued and included in decision-making and community. This includes welcoming differences, respecting perspectives, and ensuring everyone feels a sense of belonging.
DEI is often grouped together because they are interconnected and have the greatest impact when combined. Some examples of DEI in the workplace include: avoiding gendered terms, being mindful of cultural differences, and using inclusive greetings.
There's a great real-time example of this privilege in a clip from a college course at Harvard. They have a course called "justice" that you can stream on TH-cam (taught brilliantly by Michael Sandel, an underrated thinker imo). He mentions to the class how studies have found that first-born kids tend to enjoy outsized success in life, then he asks the giant lecture hall for a show of hands, whom among them are first born. Must've been 80% or something. Even the 'meritocracy' boosters in the class pretty much shut up at that point.
Can you link & timestamp this please?
But merit still plays a MAJOR roll. They committed hundreds of hours and extreme dedication to get there (Harvard). Yes, some people go along ways because of money or family connections, but the vast majority of people that are considered reasonably successful are successful because they dedicated their time and effort to grow and become better at their profession. True meritocracy is a system that does NOT allow for rich people to just pay their way through things. Instead, true meritocracy should make it possible for anyone who is willing to dedicate their time and effort to their goals, be able to succeed.
Weird, thought I'd already linked it...maybe TH-cam's taking it down?
@@isaacwolford Yes of course merit plays some role, the debate is between whether it's the WHOLE picture or only part. Everybody's lot is a mixture of personal choices and situation, and it's impossible to parse those for a given person, so why not improve the situational aspect 'best we can?
Sandel himself has called for changing enrollment to be a mixture of "merit" (yes you need to perform so well on GPA and tests etc.) and a lottery system, where a certain number of random people past the meritocratic bar are randomly selected.
Point is, saying 'luck' or the system plays any role in a person's circumstances is like heresy to the right. And it's...delusional
@@klauterj but it’s already obvious that luck plays a part as well. Some people are born with certain predispositions or natural intelligence that can give them many advantages over others. Some just happen to be born into a family with parents who highly value knowledge and education, which results in them starting their careers as children. Life isn’t fair. I’d say that those who have put in the effort and have attained the highest achievements, should be the ones who get the Jobs, Internships, Etc.
Simply setting a minimum bar such as GPA or test scores, and then using a lottery is not nearly holistic enough.
TL;DR at the bottom.
I think I would say that we live in a merit-based society for some people (we're not going to talk about money and connections because that blows everything out of the water).
As an example, Jake only has to go to college and get a 4 year degree to get a job, but Tanisha has to work and go to college for her degree AND be paid less for the same job, and Laura who had to learn English on top of what Tanisha did, where is the fairness? Not only is the playing field not level (some people have to work harder for the same result), but the goal, the outcome will not be valued in equal measure. Jake is essentially rewarded more for having done "less."
I don't think (regular) people complaining about DEI are suffering because of DEI. It's rough for everybody right now, and twice as hard for people who every time they turn on the news, someone who shares an identity with them is being lambasted as "the problem with this country (tm)". Their actual complaints should be against the systems that cause workers harm in general. Greedflation and wage stagnation, mass layoffs, workplace abuse, automation without regard to workers, scummy hiring practices, corporate lobbying and power, etc. All of these things affect all workers. DEI and immigration are being scapedgoated as the problem to keep people from class consciousness and unionizing.
When people complain about DEI, they are not approaching it from the view of "what about the people who are getting left behind?" It's always, "they got the job because of [identity]," which is usually incorrect (unless the identity is essential to a certain project* or for the ability/quota to apply for grants and government contracts/some loans**).
Here's an example of what I mean. Some of those people think hiring the best person for the job means hiring someone with two double major PhDs and 20 years of experience at age 30. The reality is that past a certain point gaining more skills does not make you more competitive in hiring. So someone with the time and resources to gain those skills might actually be looked at as more of a liability because they will want higher compensation, and someone with a "tighter" skillset could be hired instead of them. If we say Jake who went back for his Master's and Laura applied for the same job, it could look like a DEI hire if they pick Laura. Jake has more skills right? But the company only needed a certain level of competency and didn't want (or couldn't afford) to pay for more. There's a few more examples of this kind of thing, but most of the time, it's just business.
I don't think people should be punished for the circumstances of their birth, and I think AA and DEI were a step in the right direction. We have come a long way and I think it's time that we stop asking, "what's your identity" and start asking, "how tall is your mountain?" DEI is flawed and we need to take a more holistic approach when we are considering things that are intended to be "tiebreakers." Because as unfair as the first example is, it is also very unfair for Amanda who only had to go for 4 years to get her degree to be equally considered with Josh who worked, took care of his siblings and drug-addicted mother, and still finished his degree in 4 years. We still need to do the work for social justice, but we also need to be able to look at things critically and be willing to make adjustments.
* Think consulting on for proper character portrayals or casting for media.
**To be clear, this isn't a mandate and does not apply to most businesses. Many business just do this because it makes them look good which is also why a lot of the time it can seem performative. Usually, if they want the money, they have an affirmative action statement on their website/hiring materials. Additionally, most of these are usually high-turnover, low-paying, dead-end jobs too, and I literally haven't seen anyone complain about DEI at McDonald's, Walmart, or Amazon (very interesting).
TL;DR: DEI was meant to reward people for overcoming hardship with opportunities for career and financial advancement. Most of the problems that people ascribe to DEI are business practices that can be largely dealt with by unionizing and good policy. DEI has left people behind and advanced people who would get along fine without it. We do need a better approach less based on identity and more on what people have overcome. Keep working towards a better world.
Also, if you support nepotism but decry things like DEI, you're very silly. A real "rules for thee but not for me" kind of person.
Imo, nepotism is way worse than DEI because at least the DEI hire has to be qualified BEFORE they get hired. Nepo hires usually just get to be in leadership without experience and sometimes education. We have plenty of real world examples, especially in the upcoming presidency!
What proportion of students ever engage with politics at university in this way??
As a former STEM student living in a large intercollegiate hall in a major city, none of my peers were politically active in the way these right-wing freaks seem to imagine.
The same applied to my peers studying arts subjects, languages and history.
I work at a university now, and things look exactly the same.
Sure, there are subjects that attract a lot of student protest, but it's not some organised movement being fed by leftist tutors.
The only ones who were politically engaged in that way were...politics students, and they were only involved because they expected a career in politics.
That is a hell of a metaphor that the guy used, it’s the kind of metaphor you hear from fundamentalist preacher.
Yup that man from the heritage foundation employs textbook fascist rhetoric.
Elon has used the woke mind virus phrase too.
Rings true
Not surprising. Pretty sure all the hate against trans people spawned from him as well.
When the founders said that all men are created equal they really didn't mean it.
Then they were right.
Just google "Average IQ by race" and observe what immediately pops up Wokey 😂🫵
Obviously the idea of being "created" was also a false assumption, they also had no idea of what type of world the future would be, for instance none of them could have imagined an AK47,or an RPG when talking about 'guns'.
Sam, I’d like to hear you be far more supportive and forward in your compassionate care when comfort is needed for young students alone in fascist schools. Great answer, but aloofness like that at the end is a bit rougher than the psychological state of our kiddos/adolescents/young adults today desperately need. Please pay much better sensitive care there. As a clinical psychologist, I gotta warn ya, that tinged air of aloofness delivers and receives as less than what is needed here with tact and a sense of community. They need emotional solidarity to come out in the attitude as well-emotional solidarity. Logos? Yes. 🙌🏽 Ethos? Absolutely. Pathos? Yes, yes also. Ya know, buddy? Keep up the great work! Love ya, Sammy!
As a Catholic and a historian, I'm embarrassed that Kevin Roberts is a Catholic and a historian. He is a disgrace to his faith and a disgrace to his profession.
Why is everyone like him also a catholic convert?
DEI is based on facts and data. For the ‘facts don’t care about your feelings’ crowd, they sure are emotional and in their feelings about it.
We should have caps on how much anyone can pay themselves or someone else. No one needs to recrive more then 5 million a year no one...
Thank u Sam S& crew! I appreciate your sacrifices...
It's not new. 13 years ago I was doing a college course in economics (remember, 2008 and euro debt crisis still not fully over). The professor explained in the same seminar how Keynes saved the economy after the great depression but also how Keynes was really bad, how we should go for massive austerity and how stuff like the Laffer curve (utter bullshit) worked.
The thing is, at the time when you're a student who just wants to pass. You're not encouraged to question stuff.
I sympathize. Thank you for your service. I am never in a non-aware state, when the anti communist rich scream for Keynsian stimulus and call it necessary to save our economy
Corporations want to benefit from their implications of those who learned from public schools they funded
2:04 The only real privilege is economic privilege.
The big problem will be how the GOP wield any new power they employ.. for certain scary times a coming.
I think it'll be worse than we even think..
I’ve heard this many times by students at my school saying that DEI is discriminatory.
What's even more hilarious is rural and low income americans also qualify for scholarships and grants through DEI. It's quite literally the E in DEI which is equity. Like legitimately the only people that don't qualify for scholarships from DEI is the super rich whom legit already could pay for full tuition yet Republicans convince their own voters that not only DEI is somehow "discrimination" but that "No true Republican" no matter how poor should accept financial aid assistance through them while working on ways that would take away their access from pell grants let alone scholarships 😂😂😂. It's completely fucking delusional.
@@joshuahall1581 A major part of the problem, viewing from the inside as someone from such a background but doesn't look like it, and trying to do better for my own students now, is that the academic advisers who are tasked with getting students access to these resources (and these students won't know about them, or how to go about getting them if they do know) have an overly narrow search image when it comes to who they advise to do what. This is particularly true for the larger regional universities. They're very good at connecting female students or people of color, and they've been well trained to do so. But in the process of ramming hundreds of students through mandatory counseling per semester, they skip over that white student who may qualify due to low EFC but they didn't think to check. Or they won't register that the rural white male who happens to be 1st gen is also qualified for McNair. The latter was my problem. Luckily there was a faculty member that "forced" me to do ug research in her lab knowing how necessary it was for me to get into graduate school. Then there were issues that I couldn't present the research at the conference tied to the funding. As while she could hire me to work being 1st gen, the conference itself was only for females or persons of color. For a lot of people, they experience one "slight" like this and that taints their impression permanently. And on the left we are completely discouraged, socially, from bringing up these issues. So they bite us in the ass. As we see with university trends, and politics. We readily talk about how the neo-classical economics pushed out any hint of socialist education in US univ econ depts. We readily acknowledge enrollment disparities in things like engineering. But we don't talk about the fact that my last anatomy lab only had 2 males for every 20 students, and that's not a new trend. We can talk about how men will go into trades. As if that's they beginning and end of the story. But we don't ask what is the effect of having like 5 male restricted scholarships for every 95 female restricted. We completely acknowledge the necessity of supply side economics but throw it out the window when the issue is university funding as it pertains to demographics. Yet at the same time argue that more funding is needed for everyone to the extent that university should be tax funded; and it should be.
It is discriminatory
@@joshuahall1581it is discriminatory
Conservative media creates a boogeyman. Gets their base to cry, complain, get offended and outraged about it. Then after a while, when that boogeyman loses its fangs, they make another one. The things they got outraged about last year and the year before that are things they don't talk about that much anymore. They find a new scarecrow to erect.
One reason education in universities might struggle is because the people going into them might had had a loss good earlier education. Perhaps after people like trump have cut funding and messed with earlier years teaching
I like your response Sam but DEI is about so much more. Quotas are illegal. Recognizing a problem and trying to correct the problem as much as possible without quotas - reaching out to underrepresented communities, creating conditions that are more welcoming - not discriminating… there is more. DEI is not quotas - not saying you are saying that but I bet his class was.
If they argue there was never discrimination, they boldly lying. If they say its not like that anymore, then it would be because of so called DEI initiatives. It's a catch 22
Sam's language about Universities being "money hoarders" is right on. Since time immemorial that's what the rich do, hoard money!!
The right wing position (which is very popular at present in the US) is that fairness, merit, and deservedness of success or power or praise is a matter of a person's internal magical essence of deservedness or merit. It flips the idea that deserving praise or condemnation is based on one's actions and intentions, and in fact, positive intentions and actions mean that a person is putting in effort, which undermines the idea that the person has the magical positive essence. The only ones who have it are people who do not work, and who are relatively and obviously ignorant and/or depraved (i.e. not indoctrinated, in this view), and who align themselves with power and wealth regardless of what may be associated. That has to be merit for the right wing, because it is too painful to look at sociopolitical realities and context, instead of living in this essentialist fantasy world.
How about a certain amount of excess endowments goes to the students of lesser means?
Project Rightwingify Literally Everything.
Aww man he said howdy and I was like noooo don't let this be about A&M lolol here we are.
There was a study on DEI in the workplace. They studied hiring by race gender before /after a DEI pledge was made. There was no difference in hiring ratios in 93% of the companies that made that pledge.
I close my eyes and picture Hugo.
Hello Bob, it's inspection time 😂
Sam: "Play this clip"
Sam 8 seconds later: "Pause it. This is Bullshit."
This was the best impersonation of Sam ever.
Thank you for not denying the facts here
Three simple questions to ask
1. When exactly did meritocracy begin ?
2. If it didn't begin yet, will getting rid of programs that are seen to hinder it, make it start?
3. If it already began, why do we believe those same programs are standing in the way of it ?
More like economic botulism
I love ❣️ the show tonight. Workers Unite !!😉
Not a very good response. DEI is about meeting people where they are at to help them achieve their full potential. It is not about making things equal. DEI done right creates diversified talent pools that are ready for the next level. People are promoted because they are the best fit for the job, not because of a protected class designation.
He pretty much explained the E for Equity in DEI. You are pretty much explaining the D for Diversity and possibly the I for Inclusion part of DEI. Both of you are not completely right or wrong in your statements. Overall, DEI is for everyone to benefit; not just the wealthy, straight, cis, white guy who has money/connections based on his family and background.
thank you Sam. you guys rock!
At this point, the only language normies understand is fascism.
A group of people called government can't just take money unless you violated a contract .
Opportunity is what allows you to show your merit.
“Poor George [Bush], he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”
― Ann Richards
(...our last good Texas governor, who went on to lose to W. {sigh}...)
Funny that C-suite member of the Heritage foundation, which benefits as a “nonprofit,” is basically exempt from paying any taxes, complaining about an institution, living off the teeth of the government. As if tax law hasn’t directly benefited their exempt status.
why does capitalism REQUIRED to give tax breaks to ppl who DO NOT NEED IT?? the rich DO NOT NEED MORE $$$$!!!
Do any of you know as a black woman we are more educated than anyone in our workplaces. Do any of you even remember why DEI was even there? Do any of you know that those that want us out will get exactly what it’s asking. Mediocrity will be the normal way among this new workplace.
What about the neoliberal / capitalist mind virus?
If you hoard prep stuff to where you can't walk through your house, you are deemed requiring if a therapist. If you hoard money, you get on the cover of Forbes.
Equity isn't, and shouldn't be, confused with equality. We likely can't ever have equality. But certainly we can't have it, without equity.
Your advice is super valid. Practice learn to take on tough questions by knowing more then anyone that attemts to derail you...
One thing I love about the republican party is that they do the “facts over feelings” thing over and over again but most of thier talking points are about thier are about how they feel about dei they THINK it’s reverse racism.
as always, every republican accusation is confession. lol their entire belief system is based around their fee fees not facts.
The Monolopy game analogy works very good. If a player gets 100 turns, then after that another gets to play. Even while playing the same game the advantage of the first player is exponential to the amount of turns that they've had. It's willful ignorance to not acknowledge that fact.
Accountability is the only way for us to live up to the vision of who we think we are...but ya gotta wanna.
You guys answered this question terribly
I love the guy interviewing him basically being like you sound an awful lot like Pol Pot, and his answer being yes it’s why our voters elected us
How do I sound like McCarthy without sounding like McCarthy?
Fairness from what standpoint? Fairness amongst candidates for a job vs fairness to even have an application considered for an interview.
„Yes this is you“ took me out lmfaooo
You cant just shut down federal agencies ane pick them up again.
Woke= The Enlightment
There is nothing fair about telling me I have to hire an employee based on race or gender..
Not one person has said that. What they say is you cannot deny a job based on those things. See simple.
@ and how would you prove that?….
@@Jayjames6568 they literally did a study where they used the same resume and put a white sounding name on one and an ethnic sounding name on another. Sent them to over 100 fortune 500 companies and 86% of the time they chose the white name.
Just like that you mean.
@@ObliviousMalodi how many of the names where Asian?
@@Jayjames6568 out of 1000 applications 22% had an eastern sounding name. I say eastern because Thai last names are different than most the same with Indonesian names.
I work as a research scientist in a university, and I'd like the products of my labour to be widely accessible and fortunately in my field that's ~doable, but still, there's capitalist(ist ideological) capture in all universities with endowments. I think the equity in scientific output should be split equally four ways between central government, the funding body that funded it, the institutions supporting the research in kind or as representatives of the consensus-making institutions for the disciplines to which a particular scholar is contributing to (university, professional associations, etc), and then finally the research workers ourselves. Initially I thought to say "no, the workers should own the means of production" but assuming instead a kind of social-democracy (rather than a more Marxian democratic socialism 😅)
To be honest, though, I think science would thrive better in a world where it could all or mostly be completely open-source and collectivised. In which scenario, to speak of 'equity' doesn't really work because there's no 'profits' to capture, only really benefits to the whole community (and of course costs and risks, though these would inevitably be borne disproportionately by the workers making the decisions to take such risks, and of course there would still be all the necessary top-down regulation of safety procedures etc).