I disagree that it’s a problem to point out that the complexity of the issue is a slippery slope. The solution to perceived inequity itself is rife with problems because it’s a massively complex system that’s being proposed in order to right wrongs both real and perceived. You create a double world, so to speak, where people operate using the color of your skin, your sexual preferences, your gender identity, and ethnicity to establish a new hierarchy - this new hierarchical world ends up being just as oppressive to every group that doesn’t occupy the top preferential position, and we’re expected to accept that this new hierarchy is going to avoid the pitfalls of gatekeeping based on race, ethnicity, gender, and other human fallibilities it’s supposedly trying to correct. The system itself is then designed not to correct historical wrongs, because let’s be honest, once a hierarchy is established it’s not just going to melt away because humans have reached color, gender, and ethnic blindness.Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 5:56 amAll you’ve done here is ignored almost everything in my post. Your slippery slope is based on what I specifically said I was not proposing.Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 12:55 amI think you just provided an excellent new category we’ll have to consider when ensuring equity. For example, here in UT there exists a variety of Mormons, ex-Mormons, and everything in between. If Utah business X or Utah government agency Y have 100 positions to fill, I’m fairly certain it wouldn’t be fair to fill 100 positions with just temple recommend holding Mormons because we want representation more than we want positions filled on, say, competency. Wouldn't it be fair to hold 50 seats for non-temple recommend holding Mormons?
Aha, but what about ex-Mormons? Ok. 33/33/34.
Thanks, but what about Christian ex-Mormons? Ok. 25/25/25/25.
Well, what about non-Brighamite Mormons? And atheist ex-Mormons? What about agnostic Mormon? What about LGTBQA Mormons and ex-Mormons? What about Latino and Hispanic Mormons?
Ok. Say we finally hammer out 100 categories where people have been oppressed, repressed, or distressed. On person per category gets a position. Who determines the hierarchy from least to most disadvantaged? How does this person or commission determine it? And how do they determine annual rankings as categories of unfairly treated people shift around with regard to privilege?
- Doc
Why not design a system set to promote competency that removes these arbitrary standards? I know, I know, because marginalized groups aren’t going to measure up due to systemic inequalities. And that’s the crux of the issue. Once you determine the “system” is set up, by design, to promote one group over other groups there’s no fair way to promote equality of outcome because equality of opportunity never existed in the first place. in my opinion, creating a mirror oppressive system designed around arbitrary standards simply creates new oppression. It’s ill equipped to deal with a world that demands performance. I’m all for everyone getting a shot to be their best within whatever organization, but I’m opposed to sticking someone into an opportunistic position because of how they look, or what they believe. It’s disastrous when considered within the context of finding and selecting the best talent for one’s organization.
- Doc