Forced participation in DEI is well beyond "equality of all citizens". In fact, if you notice, the very word "equality" is banned there - you must say "equity", because equality is not enough. As Kendi teaches us, "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination". I don't think this has anything to do with "equality" - and yes, the fact that people are required to participate in this discrimination, advocate it and advance it, lead efforts to implement it, and "develop and implement a pedagogy and/or curriculum that promotes a race-conscious lens" - yes, I think this is as bad as banning a person from criticizing the government. In fact, it's worse - at least it doesn't force you to publicly agree with the government and actively lead the efforts to conform to the government and implement the government diktats and government-led discrimination in your pedagogical and scientific endeavors. At least the silence could be you refuge. It is worse when even a silent disagreement is declared to be "violence".
> How is one "forced" to participate when all DEI really means is "the fair treatment and full participation of all people"
As I already proven, it does not.
> What's wrong with building a society that realizes wheelchair ramps are good, and stairs alone are exclusive?
I think some people would object to equating race with disability, but that is between you and your VP DEI . But yes, I think forcing people to advocate ramps and firing them if they fail to do so is wrong.
> Does this Kendi have a monopoly on the concepts of DEI? I
Probably not, but I never heard any DEI-supporting person to publicly denounce Kendi and his ilk and declare he is wrong and gets the concept (which he coined, as far as I remember? may be wrong on that, but he's certainly prominent) wrong, and the real one is so and so. Once I encounter such a person, I'll hear what they say, until that - that is what we have.
> Is it not enough to recognize that the statement is stupid and carry on?
No it's not. Because this is exactly how it is implemented, and nobody recognizes that it is stupid. In fact, they recognize is as a howto. That's why they demand "racially conscious lens" in the pedagogical approach. If they thought discrimination is stupid, they'd not require it.
> Sorry, but if you don't like trying to life up those around you
I don't even know what this means. But it's not about me and what I like. This is a really despicable rhetorical move to put the equality between "I don't support forced speech to promote 'anti-racist' discrimination" and "I want to be racist". It's not about me - it's about forcing people to perform political speech that the government favors. Yes, it's worse than even banning disfavored speech.
> I don't need you around me or in my organization.
Good thing I don't care what you need. The institutions that use my tax dollars are different business though.
> I'm not forcing you to do anything, I'm saying to be here, you are required to do certain things, and you're more than free to refuse and work elsewhere.
You imagine yourself to be the owner of public universities. You aren't. And as such, there are rules to what they are allowed and not allowed to do, and forcing political speech favored by the government is not part of this. If you want to open your private university, from your private costs, and demand that everybody who joins it would proclaim whatever credo you like 5 times a day, I would think this is very stupid, but I wouldn't object, and I would object to the government efforts to shut you down, if it even happens. But when it comes to institutions that serve wider public is not about your whims anymore.
> and you're more than free to refuse and work elsewhere.
It is funny how in one place you are "everybody must vocally support the efforts to be inclusive or you're evil" and then once you feel a bit of power - even completely imaginary one - you are suddenly "you can go elsewhere if you don't like it here". Inclusion only works one way - the way that is favorable to you - but as soon as you feel it's not convenient anymore, it's hardcore "keep you nose out of my business". Fascinating.
"Regardless, teaching one side of a current controversy as fact in mandatory school is manipulation."
If there were a real controversy, sure, but the sides here are "everyone is a human worthy of rights, protections, and opportunity," versus "some people deserve more and opportunity than others". One is tolerant, one is not. I am under no compulsion to be tolerant of intolerance. It is proper, ethical, and moral to fight for the rights of all humans, and it is improper, unethical, and immoral to fight against them.
The issue here is 'being intolerant of intolerance' requires you to decide what is and isn't intolerant.
Let's take affirmative action for example. Giving people whose grandparents were negatively impacted by unjust laws more opportunities than other people.
Opposing this is not 'intolerance', it's an opinion in a debate about whether that is actually fair. It's an active debate and one side is trying to shut down opposition to their political goals and force their kids to say they're right
Trying to close all debate and push a narrative isn't democratic, it's authoritarian and one of the most common tools to oppress and control
