DEI is about what you "are", and reduces what you do/did/can/... to stuff that was decided when you were born. In a perfect "DEI" world, your status would be decided the moment you are conceived and would be utterly unchangeable. It's fundamentally a status game. It's about "blood", what blood, skin, hair, ... you're born with.
DEI has advanced in society to the point that, ironically, it's not tolerant of other viewpoints. And the ideology doesn't see this as a problem, in fact like all zero-merit ideologies (meaning they don't value individuals at all, and certainly not on personal achievement), they're actively proud of being bullies. Except this is a bullies club where entry is based on your genes.
DEI as "let's make a meritocracy more meritocratic" is great. Fantastic even. And it certainly was a necessity. DEI appears to not be that, anymore.
And even this is disregarding that DEI is at least partially a coverup for dumb spending cuts by government. Or that it's failing. The advancement of DEI is certainly not making the poor better off.
Specifically: here's an article where Rachel Dolezal clearly states she would like to identify as black, to escape her parents' upbringing. She was accused of being a "race faker", which to me indicates, less-than-subtly, that changing your race is not accepted by DEI groups.
(Ironically the "reason" this is unfair strikes me as paticularly ironic. She claims to take on a black racial identity to escape the suffering her family inflicted on her. This suffering appears real, and there's certainly enough elements to indicate it's an ongoing issue in her life even now. According to the "African American community", this is unfair, because they suffered centuries ago, but not personally)
Isn't IQ both highly inherited and highly correlated with achievement? And if both those are true then isn't the idea of meritocracy ultimately mostly still down to luck of birth?
This is one of those things that we can't really talk about anymore. There are racist connotations, ironically to both sides of the argument.
To say it has a strong genetic component could be construed to mean certain races have IQ differences.
To say it does not have a genetic component can be construed to saying current members of races are largely responsible for their own IQ, which is denying the effects of unequal treatment of races.
As for science, there's a problem with heritability. Do you mean genes? Or do you mean "average" attitudes to the intelligence and education of children, which can correlate with race and location? Or do you mean environment in other ways (such as money and available resources, divorce status of parents, ... which again correlates with race)?
Genes alone (from split up twin studies), explain about half the variability in IQ (which translates to about 4 IQ points). The environment you had as a child explains the rest.
DEI isn’t only focused on race. And even if so, if there are more statistically distributed poor people of one race getting by than another, that is a problem.
> Black and Hispanics make up just 14 percent of students admitted from outside the automatic threshold, even though they make up 60 percent of Texas high school graduates. Meanwhile, white and Asian students make up 73 percent of non-automatically admitted students, while they make up 39 percent of Texas high school graduates overall.
