Re: [Gendispatch] revised

[Dan Harkins <[e-mail]>]

On 2/23/21 10:34 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
>     *>* Because it ends up defining people and their behavior and
>     motives based
>     on immutable features of their birth. It treats people as if they are
>     members of an identity group and not individuals.
>
> I don’t look at it that way. I see it as the organization recognizing 
> that it has had some blind spots and is working to address them, so 
> that more traditionally-under-represented people participate. (Once 
> they participate, of course, they should get treated the same as 
> everyone else. I hope that goes without saying.)
>

   You don't actually address my statement, you just bring up a vaguery
("blind spots") and state your aspirational goals ("so that more
traditionally-under-represented people participate").

   Can you, perhaps, connect the dots? You know, explain how focusing on 
race
initially, and to the exclusion of every other aspect of diversity, will end
up with more traditionally-under-represented people participating. If not,
then what is so compelling to you about considering race first and foremost?

> I am also concerned because the attitude quoted above has often been 
> used as stop-energy to prevent any work from being done. That may not 
> be the case here and I am heartened to see Keith’s draft.
>

   Stop-energy, eh? Well consider that work should be prevented if it 
requires
valuing people based on the color of their skin and not the content of their
character.

   Dan.

-- 
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius