Discussion on answer by paulj: How to answer the diversity question during faculty interview

@Reid I imagine you'll extend this assertion to Asians and especially Jews, who are hugely disproportionately represented among Ivy League attendees and other "successful" professional and social strata, despite decades (or centuries) of discrimination, right? The issue is that although it feels dangerously like "common sense", there is no rigorous proof of the degree to which discrimination of certain minorities has contributed to their lack of success. Further, the fact that successful men are white does not mean that while men in general are privileged. This thinking only justifies racism.

@DonThousand these "refutations" are not as rigorous as you believe. What about Jews who have experienced thousands of years of persecution? What about the various white European groups who were treated with disdain for decades in the U.S. (Poles, Eastern Europeans, Italians). Why do we even group all of these different groups together as "whites" as if all of their experiences are the same? Inequality of outcome is not indicative of inequality of opportunity which requires active correction. Why do CERTAIN minorities get special treatment?

I can't imagine the rational answer being anything other than "I treat them the same way I treat 'non-diverse' students", but I know that's not the answer they're looking for. Also I think the fact that they are using the word "diverse" as code for "non-white male" is indicative of the strong implicit bias that they are forcing and the fact that this is now socially acceptable is IMO shameful.

@DonThousand Whether you wish to count it as discriminatory or not does not erase the face that that allowing race or gender to influence hiring IS discriminatory - even if you think its for a good cause. Besides the fallacy of judging an individual based on a distribution, the links between historic "disadvantage" (an extremely vague catch all) are VASTLY overstated, as evidenced by other disadvantaged groups like that of my own family who had no issues succeeding and entering the upper middle class. Because my skin happens to be white-ish I would have been disadvantaged by such hiring.

Those in power don't actually lean the way they demand everyone else lean. "Diversity" is the chief weapon of the new colonialism.

@DonThousand Why does slavery get preferential treatment over disenfranchisement or genocide? And the razing of economies happened to countries outside of the US - that's a separate topic from the systematic forces allegedly responsible for modern day inequality. I think our conflict boils down to a disagreement over the extent to which greater forces have led to different success distributions, and to what extent it is valid to attempt to correct for them; and this is probably an appropriate time to agree to disagree.

@DonThousand You said "The Eastern Europeans and the Jews were not enslaved for the last 1000 years. I don't see the equivalence". I was replying to your last comment, not the sum of our discussion. But the point applies in general, reverse discrimination cannot be implemented without deciding what kind of historic, systematic abuse justify preferential treatment and what kind do not. Which is a significant soft power open to dangerous abuse. Anyway, as I said previously, I think this conversation has gone on long enough and is way off topic now, so I'm out of here.

@DonThousand as East European I find this comment mildly amusing, if somewhat offensive. Significant parts of East Europe, including my home country, was first under Teutonic German, then Russian (with a mild sprinkling of Swedes and others) rule. Natives were mostly serfs, the ruling class -- foreigners. The language of the native population was not used in official documents or among the elite and only in second half of 19th century was both serfdom abolished and natives gained opportunities for national self identification. In essence much of East Europe was colonies for the larger empires.

@user2647513 This isn't about treating people differently. This is about dealing with implicit biases, which we all have. Part of the reason diversity (not just of race, gender, etc) is important is because it helps to bring these biases to the surface. Are there people misusing diversity as a tool? Certainly. But you paint the system with far too broad a brush. And in doing so, you are comprising the validity of the objections that you have.

Personally, I hate the self-victimization of many in the US. You can't expect me to believe that hundreds of years of institutionalized inequality have just magically disappeared in 50 years. Institutions working to correct those biases does not count as discrimination towards those that they continue to accept.