When you look at the check-box categories used by DEI, they are all determined by a few genes with very few differences except the XY sex chromosomes that are big genetic hunks. The shape of hair or the color of skin are just a few genes that can be of very recent evolutionary origins. However, none of these minor phenotypes are relevant to the "quality of character".
The important characteristics like intelligence, personality, etc. are clearly polygenetic involving thousands of genes, which go back to our non-human ancestors.
However, we now have the so-called social sciences creating their version of "astrology" by seeing patterns where no pattern may be real or significant. Seeing discrimination when individuals may want different things and never controlling for the desire, interest, and abilities of individuals in there analysis is not scientific but does give them the answers they want. They use the word scientific in their views of themselves, but like the astrologist of old with their 2-D viewpoint of a 3-D universe with non-linear time variable they are obtaining false results and understanding of the world.
I worry that these results will result in cultural instabilities based upon false conclusions and bad decisions, a bit like starting wars based upon the "alignment of the heavens" and other astrological nonsense.
Equality is finally being excepted by most of society. There is now an attempt to "correct" for the past by some of these same people. Usually it is not done without fully considering the cause of an apparent injustice. Blacks are just one of many groups that have been systematically held back in some areas where white people were given opportunities. The latest would be trans people. Neither of these groups are new but there is a renewed view of any "group" and a desire for most of society to see them succeed just like any other. It will take time for all the pieces to fall in place and a true equal society to emerge. It takes, dare I say it, a critical look, at the issues being faced by a particular group to help them achieve not just what they can achieve but also what they want to achieve as individuals. This might mean that a special program is needed temporarily but should not be needed long term.
I, for one, do not think I have enough details to judge the cases.
For example, may be the special program was remedial to bring underperforming black students to average levels of skill and the white male was already of average skill, or his father could afford to pay to enroll him in remedial course while the black students could not. How many white males wanted to enroll? May be the special program should have been based on remedial and financial need, but need happened to be predominantly racial and too complicated for bureaucrats to make exceptions.
In the pension case, may be the women chose part time work because they had children to take care of with fathers (male!) missing or having very low paying jobs. Because the burden of propagating the species falls squarely on the (smaller?) shoulders of women, should we condemn them to an old age in poverty for being women through no fault of their own?
If you are a white male and have paid fully for your beautiful house, do you resent that the government may offer free dwellings for homeless people? As far as I know, no white male worked hard to be born white male!
I know of course that I made up these details but the cases as presented in the article are too general to judge. Is it really an equal rights issue or a resentment issue? And if it is equal rights, what about reparations for denying equal rights to black people and women for so long (centuries and millennia respectively!)
When you look at the check-box categories used by DEI, they are all determined by a few genes with very few differences except the XY sex chromosomes that are big genetic hunks. The shape of hair or the color of skin are just a few genes that can be of very recent evolutionary origins. However, none of these minor phenotypes are relevant to the "quality of character".
The important characteristics like intelligence, personality, etc. are clearly polygenetic involving thousands of genes, which go back to our non-human ancestors.
However, we now have the so-called social sciences creating their version of "astrology" by seeing patterns where no pattern may be real or significant. Seeing discrimination when individuals may want different things and never controlling for the desire, interest, and abilities of individuals in there analysis is not scientific but does give them the answers they want. They use the word scientific in their views of themselves, but like the astrologist of old with their 2-D viewpoint of a 3-D universe with non-linear time variable they are obtaining false results and understanding of the world.
I worry that these results will result in cultural instabilities based upon false conclusions and bad decisions, a bit like starting wars based upon the "alignment of the heavens" and other astrological nonsense.
Equality is finally being excepted by most of society. There is now an attempt to "correct" for the past by some of these same people. Usually it is not done without fully considering the cause of an apparent injustice. Blacks are just one of many groups that have been systematically held back in some areas where white people were given opportunities. The latest would be trans people. Neither of these groups are new but there is a renewed view of any "group" and a desire for most of society to see them succeed just like any other. It will take time for all the pieces to fall in place and a true equal society to emerge. It takes, dare I say it, a critical look, at the issues being faced by a particular group to help them achieve not just what they can achieve but also what they want to achieve as individuals. This might mean that a special program is needed temporarily but should not be needed long term.
I, for one, do not think I have enough details to judge the cases.
For example, may be the special program was remedial to bring underperforming black students to average levels of skill and the white male was already of average skill, or his father could afford to pay to enroll him in remedial course while the black students could not. How many white males wanted to enroll? May be the special program should have been based on remedial and financial need, but need happened to be predominantly racial and too complicated for bureaucrats to make exceptions.
In the pension case, may be the women chose part time work because they had children to take care of with fathers (male!) missing or having very low paying jobs. Because the burden of propagating the species falls squarely on the (smaller?) shoulders of women, should we condemn them to an old age in poverty for being women through no fault of their own?
If you are a white male and have paid fully for your beautiful house, do you resent that the government may offer free dwellings for homeless people? As far as I know, no white male worked hard to be born white male!
I know of course that I made up these details but the cases as presented in the article are too general to judge. Is it really an equal rights issue or a resentment issue? And if it is equal rights, what about reparations for denying equal rights to black people and women for so long (centuries and millennia respectively!)