Isn't it about time for us to get real about this conundrum? Just as Separate cannot be Equal, Diversity and Inclusion are mutually exclusive concepts in the real world. The use of the term "Oreo" sums this up perfectly: One can't be "Black" and adopt "White" values at the same time. Since shared values define a cohesive society, how can we continue to pretend that aberrant behavior will produce beneficial results?
CDZ Diversity or Inclusion: Pick ONE
- Thread starter jwoodie
- Start date
iamwhatiseem
Diamond Member
In the manner at which Diversity policies are being implemented via policies/tax breaks/education grants etc. etc. - they are mutually exclusive.
- Thread starter
- #4
Is that it? Are you really that stupid?
TheOldSchool
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #5
In my office there are people of every race and religion. It is diverse, and they are all included.
So does that make YOU the really stupid one?
- Thread starter
- #6
Did I use too many big words in the OP? Are you familiar with the term "Oreo?" Do you understand that I was referring to shared social values? Are you illiterate? Does the concept of inclusion really escape you? Have you ever heard of a societal melting pot? Please enlighten me...
ricechickie
Gold Member
The point is, one doesn't have to be the same as everyone else to be included.
Diversity is inclusion of everyone, despite differences.
Diversity is inclusion of everyone, despite differences.
Yes. Only to those who think ignorance and illiteracy are things to be proud of.
- Thread starter
- #9
So are Black Americans fully included in American society?
Do you have a concrete example of this that does not involve restrooms?
Asclepias
Diamond Member
No they are not.
- Thread starter
- #12
Inclusion in what? Physical proximity is meaningless without shared values.
DGS49
Diamond Member
A little history lesson: Many years ago, the Federal Government told its agencies and instrumentalities to avoid discrimination against, mainly, "Negros" and women (to comply with the 14th Amendment), there were few tangible, large scale improvements in the lot of these two groups. The Supreme Court suspected that intelligent bigots could "prove" they were not discriminating even though the result was that they were only hiring and promoting white males. So the USSC invented something called, "Affirmative Action," which - they thought - would force the Whites in power to hire and promote the groups which were the victims of insidious discrimination
But Affirmative Action had some constitutional problems of its own. Indeed, Affirmative Action is DISCRIMINATING against white males in favor of blacks and women, in the name of eliminating discrimination. The country was collectively pissed.
So the USSC invented the concept of "diversity." They said that discrimination in the name of Affirmative Action was still bad (and unconstitutional), but if an organization wanted to have policies that promoted "diversity" (doing the same thing as Affirmative Action, but denying it), that would be OK.
And that's where we are now. Colleges and state agencies and big companies all have "diversity" programs that are theoretically intended to diversify the workforce (bring in a "representative" number of several groups which are perceived to be the victims of discrimination) for their own betterment. Parenthetically one might mention that no one has ever documented how that "betterment" comes about or its tangible benefits, but I digress.
The OP implies that a "successful" program of promoting "diversity" does not really lead to "inclusion" because the beneficiaries of the Diversity programs have to "think white" and "act white" and "talk white" in order to be included. Thus, they must abandon the culture that would make the workplace "diverse" in order to get admitted, hired, or promoted.
I respectfully disagree. It is not "white" to speak proper English; it is American. It is not "white" to dress according to business norms, or be punctual, or be respectful of authority, or go about your daily tasks with enthusiasm and grace. These things are required of everyone, and many people have to abandon the language, dress, and culture of their home or neighborhood in order to be accepted in academe, the workplace, or society.
There is a five-letter word that describes those who feel strongly as the OP does: "loser."
But Affirmative Action had some constitutional problems of its own. Indeed, Affirmative Action is DISCRIMINATING against white males in favor of blacks and women, in the name of eliminating discrimination. The country was collectively pissed.
So the USSC invented the concept of "diversity." They said that discrimination in the name of Affirmative Action was still bad (and unconstitutional), but if an organization wanted to have policies that promoted "diversity" (doing the same thing as Affirmative Action, but denying it), that would be OK.
And that's where we are now. Colleges and state agencies and big companies all have "diversity" programs that are theoretically intended to diversify the workforce (bring in a "representative" number of several groups which are perceived to be the victims of discrimination) for their own betterment. Parenthetically one might mention that no one has ever documented how that "betterment" comes about or its tangible benefits, but I digress.
The OP implies that a "successful" program of promoting "diversity" does not really lead to "inclusion" because the beneficiaries of the Diversity programs have to "think white" and "act white" and "talk white" in order to be included. Thus, they must abandon the culture that would make the workplace "diverse" in order to get admitted, hired, or promoted.
I respectfully disagree. It is not "white" to speak proper English; it is American. It is not "white" to dress according to business norms, or be punctual, or be respectful of authority, or go about your daily tasks with enthusiasm and grace. These things are required of everyone, and many people have to abandon the language, dress, and culture of their home or neighborhood in order to be accepted in academe, the workplace, or society.
There is a five-letter word that describes those who feel strongly as the OP does: "loser."
Asclepias
Diamond Member
I disagree. One can adopt "white" values for the purpose of succeeding in a system built by, built for, and dominated by whites. Once in the comfort of home you can take off that costume and be yourself and live your own culture. I have done this for 15 plus years with outstanding success and no one looks at me as an Oreo.
ricechickie
Gold Member
Mostly included. But still often treated differently. That doesn't mean that they aren't included, but that they have different experiences.
ricechickie
Gold Member
Not true. The only shared value absolutely necessary for diversity is respect.
- Thread starter
- #17
It is too bad that this subject is so emotionally charged that rational discussion is impossible. Instead we exchange politically correct phrases with little or no meaning, and attack anyone who seeks genuine understanding.
Asclepias
Diamond Member
If you are truly after discussion you need to be open to extremely opposite view points than the one you currently own. The subject is only emotionally charged if you are emotionally invested. So far you are the only one that mentioned emotions.
- Thread starter
- #19
I constantly seek out opposing viewpoints as long as they contain some combination of facts and logic. I do not consider bumper sticker sloganeering, insults or name calling to meet these criteria.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
House GOP tax bill calls for ‘SALT' deduction cap of $30,000 for most taxpayers.- Started by Dont Taz Me Bro
- Replies: 0
-
-
Provide your Estimate of the Number of Transwomen (Biologicaly Males) who are Competing in Women and Girls Sports currently- Started by Seymour Flops
- Replies: 6
-
Here is why Americans socialists hope to emulate Hitler.- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 2
-
