Promoting ideological diversity to improve/increase the representation of conservatives, for instance, in academia and other fields is criticized as/can be portrayed as promoting inclusion of false/wrong views. It is diversity and discrimination and exclusion/inclusion of content, not participant identity type.
Those who support promoting diversity of/for identity type but oppose it for ideology can frame/attempts to define their view in support of one and an opposition to the other on this ground, content versus participants, to defend their distinction/position against charges of inconsistently/hypocrisy.
But that would mean that they need to only support diversity measures that operate through participants identity and not through content in all contexts/cases.
This would mean of course that they (cannot support diversity measures/need to find other grounds to support diversity measures that) attempt to improve diverse city by pushing the deliberate/calculated/designed inclusion of content, like supporting changing Academic philosophy rather than just newly-admitting previously excluded people to the existing, unaffected/unchanged activity, or by pushing the exclusion of certain content, like male sidewalk entitlement/aggression or "boys will be boys" language in the technology world.
--
Diversity of content versus diversity of participants:
-measures to promote diversity can affect content in two ways: bringing about the deliberate/ad hoc inclusion of previously absent content (types), and bringing him about the deliberate cessation of (initially/originally) existing content for the reason that it is said to perpetuate exclusion/discrimination.
If you're going to assert that affecting content is justifiable for the sake of diversity/inclusion and may even be necessary to that end, you can't then oppose promoting ideological diversity on the grounds that it is diverse city of content rather than slash and not just diverse city of participants' (identities/identity types).
No comments:
Post a Comment