Read on Twitter
Now these terms. First, "diversity."
Diversity doesn't mean what anyone thinks it means. It means diversity as Critical Identity Studies (like Critical Race Theory) understand it, which means diverse "lived experiences of oppression." https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-diversity/
Diversity doesn't mean what anyone thinks it means. It means diversity as Critical Identity Studies (like Critical Race Theory) understand it, which means diverse "lived experiences of oppression." https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-diversity/
In other words, "diversity" means that people with "diverse" ethnic origins who all have the same Woke political understanding of those "social positions" and the world have to be hired. Everyone else lacks the "authentic" (i.e., Critical) view and thus isn't for diversity.
If you happen to be [identity] (e.g., "racially black"), then your voice is only authentically Black ("politically black") if it speaks in terms of Blackness as understood by Critical race Theory. Otherwise, it's suffering internalized racism (false consciousness) or traitorous.
These identity Theories operate on the premise that different racial and other identity groups have a different essential experience of "systemic power" dynamics and thus different "racial knowledges" obtained by "lived experience" and offense-taking (problematizing).
Thus, only someone who represents those views faithfully, meaning as Theory says they must be, has an authentic voice of that social position. No one else can possibly count as "diversity" because that's what "diversity" really refers to.
Therefore, when we see a call for more "diversity" in hiring, that means hiring more critical theorists who have more identity statuses but identical politics about identity in general. It's a call to hire more critical theorists. This fits the "essential" claim I made.
Now we move on to "equity."
Equity means "adjusting shares so that outcomes are made equal from one citizen to another." It arises from what is known as "social equity theory," and it means engineering equality of outcome. https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-equity/
Equity means "adjusting shares so that outcomes are made equal from one citizen to another." It arises from what is known as "social equity theory," and it means engineering equality of outcome. https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-equity/
Equity justifies its "essential necessity" by identifying ANY disparity in outcome that comes out on average in the negative for the "protected classes" defined by Theory (so, not white and usually not Asian, e.g.). On average differences imply "inequity" and must be adjusted.
This demand for equity is true even if there is no evidence of (or strong evidence against) any discrimination whatsoever. This is where "systemic racism," e.g., comes in. The belief is that everyone is the same, therefore any differences on average must be hidden discrimination.
That hidden discrimination might be in the organization (which will be charged with it, no matter how much it bends backwards to do the opposite) or in the vague workings of society, culture, education, representation, language, feelings, or ANYTHING ever experienced.
Because the Theory is also "ethno-historical," though, even if there are no current disparities to be found, in cases where there are historical ones, those have to be made up for too, in order to achieve equity, i.e., reparations in one form or another.
When you combine this with the cynically pessimistic beliefs straight from Critical Race Theory, though, that racism can never go away, never be made up for, you basically set yourself up to have to pay perpetual equity reparations. So, it's a clumsy tool for a power grab.
Equity is often billed as a kind of advanced "equality," and that impression is allowed to linger, though very wrong. Equality is explicitly described as a kind of conspiracy for keeping "minoritized groups" down. https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-equality-equal-opportunity-ideology/
The (rather tired) argument is that the playing field isn't level, so equality just entrenches and perpetuates those baked-in inequalities, thus necessitating equity to make up for them. This seems plausible but is assessed in a way that has almost nothing to do with reality.
Human beings aren't identity groups. In fact, those are social constructions, as the Theory points out, and human beings aren't social constructions. We're individuals. There's some question as to how determinant identity status is in outcomes, but it's really complex.
This is the utter poison of the "systemic racism" approach: it actually stops us from being able to solve real problems. By treating everyone as avatars of a socially constructed identity group, we can't identify real problems (like wealth inequality) and make poor policy.
In Theory, poor policy is fine, though, because it gets to just blame "systemic racism" which is ordinary and permanent when their poor policy fails. We could focus on individuals and relevant socioeconomic stratification, but identity is a clumsy, broken, always-divisive way.
Last complaint on "systemic racism" approaches is yet another layer of double-bind here. Theory predicts the division it will sow but misdiagnoses it, saying it's not failures of Theory but "systemic racism." So, it fails us and calls that proof for itself.
Now "inclusion."
Inclusion is probably the most sinister of these ideas (equity is just kind of stupid and communistic, diversity just has a tricky definition). Inclusion means "welcoming," but it's interpreted through power dynamics and protected classes https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-inclusion/
Inclusion is probably the most sinister of these ideas (equity is just kind of stupid and communistic, diversity just has a tricky definition). Inclusion means "welcoming," but it's interpreted through power dynamics and protected classes https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-inclusion/
An "inclusive" environment is one that doesn't create feelings of exclusion or marginalization for any protected classes or their authentic (Theoretically consistent) ideas. That is, inclusion means limiting speech to agree with Theory and excluding dissenters.
When the NYT says it is essential to increase inclusion within its halls, what it means is that there can be no dissent from the party line allowed. Why? It would make people feel "uncomfortable" or subject them to idea-based "harms" or "traumas" or "take up too much space."
There isn't a whole lot of need to elaborate on "inclusion" like with diversity and equity because it's so sinister, but it is key to understand that it specifically intends the exclusion of anything and anyone the Woke find upsetting, which is all disagreement.
Remember when I said this would be tedious? We've only done the first sentence of the communication so far. Not the first page. The first sentence.
This is why this stuff gets so far. It's SO HARD to take it apart, and then people don't believe you.
This is why this stuff gets so far. It's SO HARD to take it apart, and then people don't believe you.
Now we move on to the justification, which you will see falls directly in line with what I just said. In conversations over Slack (second paragraph), certain people said they felt they weren't being heard enough. Nice subjective standard there. How can that be satisfied?
The thing is, a standard like "I don't feel heard" (and am a member of a protected class in Theory) can ALWAYS be leveraged at any point to apply a power grab. Theory endorses this and leaves any organization open to it if they take on the approach (or infected employees).
They don't feel like they're given sufficient decision making power. Better give them more. Don't feel fully valued in our culture. Better bend to their demands. Don't feel they have access to advancement. Better promote them.
What if you don't? You're toast. Racist.
What if you don't? You're toast. Racist.
How can people not see how obviously this opens them up to a shakedown by any "minoritized group" employee who decides (s)he wants a different office environment, more power, or more money? This CREATES massive liability. It doesn't avoid it. Constant threats of litigation.
This is why we have worked so hard over the last two centuries or more to figure out increasingly objective standards and to create equality (not equity!) within our institutions. Not to exclude minoritized group members. To create functioning, stable entities.
There's something very much like the Mafia going on with this new ethic that's being ramrodded onto every institution and corporation in the Western world now. Is that how we want things to be run? Disorganized organized crime syndicate ethics? Come on.
Believe it or not, the buzzwords are just BEGINNING to get thick. I'll try to summarize very briefly because FFS.
Accountability: Basically the organized crime syndicate shakedown ethic I just described.
Investment: Pouring resources and money into complaining POC.
Accountability: Basically the organized crime syndicate shakedown ethic I just described.
Investment: Pouring resources and money into complaining POC.
Supporting: Coddling the feelings of complaining POC, more resources to them, deciding conflicts in their favor, promoting them and their work more heavily, etc.
As for the culture,
Intentional: Basically religious-like self-reflection on the above plus committed action for it.
As for the culture,
Intentional: Basically religious-like self-reflection on the above plus committed action for it.
Open: Open to hearing the opinions and complaints of the loudest Theory-hustlers, especially when POC. Not open to you or your problems, Bob.
Inclusive: Already covered, Woke-consistent only. No dissent or dissenters allowed.
Inclusive: Already covered, Woke-consistent only. No dissent or dissenters allowed.
This is said to promote "best work," but that's a lie. Best work requires criticism, dialogue, constructive disagreement, etc., which are verboten in certain directions and cases. It will produce worse work and ideological conformity.
This is said to "advance careers." Damn right it is. The grifters and identity hustlers will have their careers advanced. No one else will.
This is said to "shape the success" of the Times (at pushing Critical Theory, even if it tanks the paper and everyone's career).
This is said to "shape the success" of the Times (at pushing Critical Theory, even if it tanks the paper and everyone's career).
The rest of this first page kind of lays out the same thing as above in a self-reflective question format and then assigns task members to make it happen. When you know what the words mean (see above), those questions are a horror show. I won't repeat myself, though.
Page 2.
Here the start talking about all the fun training they'll force people, especially senior people, to undergo. As I've noted elsewhere, these diversity and inclusion trainings have a few primary purposes beyond inculcating the values described above.
Here the start talking about all the fun training they'll force people, especially senior people, to undergo. As I've noted elsewhere, these diversity and inclusion trainings have a few primary purposes beyond inculcating the values described above.
The first and proximate objective of diversity an inclusion training is to train some portion of the relevant workforce in the ideology at hand, creating a sympathetic partisan base that will be politically useful later. It helps that this decreases trust from person to person.
Since this training is aimed at management, and the whole program is corrupt to the core, it's basically to train commissars who get to be empowered by bullying people with the new diversity, equity, and inclusion rules and in the context of the new, remade office culture.
The next goal of these training is to find out who can't be re-educated, i.e., identify dissidents so they can be terminated or otherwise excluded from real participation in the organization. Of course the training meetings debrief with commissar management. Of course they do.
Note again that the main goal here is to help make sure "people" (we know which ones: critical theorists, especially in protected classes) can have their "voices heard." That is, the goal is to establish an organization that works like an identity-based crime syndicate, as above.
This sounds extreme on its own, but when you know what diversity and inclusion mean, and you see what was specifically listed as areas for improvement, the obvious conclusion to draw is that such a syndicate becomes possible in a culture to fragile to resist it.
Next section, how do we make sure we pretend that debate and discussion are allowed (100 Flowers style?) while maintaining a strict commitment to diversity and inclusion in every possible discussion. Good luck with your "candid disagreement."
The environment commits to diversity (everyone having the same general politics with many different identity-based grievances represented) and inclusion (no real dissent from Woke views), so "learning from one another" is going to be Woke Critical education only.
This is all to be facilitated by hiring a "larger and more diverse staff," i.e. a small army of critical-theory-based bureaucrats, busybodies, and tattletales who will make sure the whole thing runs like a early-communist Party outfit. Should be comfortable.
Their long-term goal is to recommend improvements to how the newsroom works, which means, if it's run by critical theory folks (and it will be eventually if it isn't already, given the rules), it will turn into the equivalent of an ethnic studies department at university.
Whoa, Jim! you might say. There's nothing wrong with ethnic studies! Well, not in principle, but in practice, they're havens of utter ideological conformity where no one is welcome to express the slightest disagreement with the prevailing moral orthodoxy, so...
The goals also include "re-imagining op-ed," which in light of the triggering incident for this coup, an op-ed from a sitting Republican senator, probably means re-imagining it more like Teen Vogue after its full-on ethno-communist turn. Opinions of record, indeed.
Page 3.
This is mostly standard claptrap and agitprop, except two important points to raise. One is the "treat with respect," which is a throwback under Wokese to the inclusion issue that no one will disagree with Wokeness.
This is mostly standard claptrap and agitprop, except two important points to raise. One is the "treat with respect," which is a throwback under Wokese to the inclusion issue that no one will disagree with Wokeness.
The second is the recognition that they'll make mistakes and learn from them. Normally this is great, but under Wokeness, "mistakes" are causing offense to Theoretically protected classes. So, learning from them means more "doing better" and more Wokeness.
In closing,
