Perhaps this comment thread has already lost its steam but I'd like to toss some ideas into the mix anyway. The thing is that the progressive left just isn't doing a genuine cost/benefit analysis that should be done with any social policy (and DEI is a social policy). They name the benefits they think will accrue through DEI initiatives (whether real or imagined) but nowhere on the left have I seen a genuine analysis of the costs. In great podcasts like the Glenn Show I see many examples of the costs but I'd like to paint the bigger picture I think I see.
In the case of classical music, the cost of hiring a slightly inferior violinist may be "just" the sidelined career of the one that truly earned it and the diminished enjoyment of the astute listener who can hear the change. However we need to take this question more broadly. I'm certain there are costs in many more scenarios which have not been assessed because the greatest losses would be invisible. They cannot be seen, felt, or measured because we cannot be aware of that which did not manifest as a result of a DEI initiative. The only way to have an inkling of what might be lost is to try to imagine it.
Jordan Peterson talks about a Pareto type distribution with respect to creativity/productivity, meaning a small minority are responsible for the majority of human productivity. This is true in the most common sense way as we can see that it is only a small number of scientists, artists, etc, that produce a huge amount of the most cutting edge and impactful output. Now, let's imagine that the #1 person in any position, field, or formative process is replaced by a #2 or a #5 person (not to mention the numerous real life examples of people that aren't even qualified). At a first glance, maybe it's no big deal, maybe the #1 person will just go find somewhere else to realize their genius.
But maybe not. Anyone that has studied the biography of genius knows that it is not at all obvious it will be realized in this world. Breakthroughs and works of art are more often a perfect storm of causes and conditions than an inevitability. How many geniuses cite that one person or one (merit-based) opportunity that changed everything? Or I could say it like this: Behind every Kanye is a Donda. Genius needs recognition, support and opportunity to flourish.
And while musical performance and sports may have small margins between the #1 and #2 spots, just how far down the ladder is the second best contemporary physicist after Stephen Hawking? In many fields the best performer is in their own league. Yet we could easily imagine a young Stephen Hawking today who would be denied his ideal college admission because of his "whiteness", and all the downstream effects that would have hampered his genius (diminished education/mentorship, research facilities, grants, exposure, etc).
We could similarly imagine the world without any particular invention, song, novel, philosopher, etc, that literally changed our lives to form the people we've become. But it's worse than that because the thought experiment only really works in retrospect. The nature of genius is that we often can't even IMAGINE it until it happens. The pre-Einstein world could never have imagined the theory of relativity. So my argument is this: To the extent DEI initiatives are successful (particularly at the highest level) is the extent to which our HUMAN INHERITANCE writ large will suffer beyond imagination. DEI might not destroy our world but it will make it that much less rich, beautiful, and may very well deprive us of what we need. We are in a world in crisis where we lack the once-in-a-century diplomats that we need, where we need breakthroughs for our ecological crises, where we need medical breakthroughs for things like Alzheimer's. It's not an ideal time in our history to jeopardize the leading edge of human development. Sure, people will still succeed in spite of DEI initiatives (though it's already worse than most people think), and sure, a sidelined genius may only cause a delay for certain inevitable inventions, but even then, what is the cost of a 10-year delay in a cure for Alzheimer's? A 10-year delay for hydrogen fuel cells that revolutionize energy systems? (And we could continue this analysis to include the local heroes, like the cost of an inspiring high school band teacher being replaced by a mediocre one).
It goes without saying that a DEI initiative which elevates a #2 person to a #1 spot will not magically give the #2 person the gifts and capacities of the #1 person. Therefore the only REAL way to address inequities (real or perceived) is to support and insist upon merit. Otherwise, in tearing down our most important contributors we'll all pay costs we cannot imagine.
I would hope that if this were all pointed out to the sincere leftist they'd realize that the meritocracy is the pinnacle of social justice and should be unflaggingly supported. If we appealed to their human core, they'd easily admit that they could care less about the "identity" of the person to invent the cure to their family member's illness (or whatever). To me it is this existential argument that is a fundamental defeat of any DEI policy, affirmative action, etc. The meritocracy realizes the ideal of BOTH honoring the individual AND offering greatest benefit to society.
Perhaps this comment thread has already lost its steam but I'd like to toss some ideas into the mix anyway. The thing is that the progressive left just isn't doing a genuine cost/benefit analysis that should be done with any social policy (and DEI is a social policy). They name the benefits they think will accrue through DEI initiatives (whether real or imagined) but nowhere on the left have I seen a genuine analysis of the costs. In great podcasts like the Glenn Show I see many examples of the costs but I'd like to paint the bigger picture I think I see.
In the case of classical music, the cost of hiring a slightly inferior violinist may be "just" the sidelined career of the one that truly earned it and the diminished enjoyment of the astute listener who can hear the change. However we need to take this question more broadly. I'm certain there are costs in many more scenarios which have not been assessed because the greatest losses would be invisible. They cannot be seen, felt, or measured because we cannot be aware of that which did not manifest as a result of a DEI initiative. The only way to have an inkling of what might be lost is to try to imagine it.
Jordan Peterson talks about a Pareto type distribution with respect to creativity/productivity, meaning a small minority are responsible for the majority of human productivity. This is true in the most common sense way as we can see that it is only a small number of scientists, artists, etc, that produce a huge amount of the most cutting edge and impactful output. Now, let's imagine that the #1 person in any position, field, or formative process is replaced by a #2 or a #5 person (not to mention the numerous real life examples of people that aren't even qualified). At a first glance, maybe it's no big deal, maybe the #1 person will just go find somewhere else to realize their genius.
But maybe not. Anyone that has studied the biography of genius knows that it is not at all obvious it will be realized in this world. Breakthroughs and works of art are more often a perfect storm of causes and conditions than an inevitability. How many geniuses cite that one person or one (merit-based) opportunity that changed everything? Or I could say it like this: Behind every Kanye is a Donda. Genius needs recognition, support and opportunity to flourish.
And while musical performance and sports may have small margins between the #1 and #2 spots, just how far down the ladder is the second best contemporary physicist after Stephen Hawking? In many fields the best performer is in their own league. Yet we could easily imagine a young Stephen Hawking today who would be denied his ideal college admission because of his "whiteness", and all the downstream effects that would have hampered his genius (diminished education/mentorship, research facilities, grants, exposure, etc).
We could similarly imagine the world without any particular invention, song, novel, philosopher, etc, that literally changed our lives to form the people we've become. But it's worse than that because the thought experiment only really works in retrospect. The nature of genius is that we often can't even IMAGINE it until it happens. The pre-Einstein world could never have imagined the theory of relativity. So my argument is this: To the extent DEI initiatives are successful (particularly at the highest level) is the extent to which our HUMAN INHERITANCE writ large will suffer beyond imagination. DEI might not destroy our world but it will make it that much less rich, beautiful, and may very well deprive us of what we need. We are in a world in crisis where we lack the once-in-a-century diplomats that we need, where we need breakthroughs for our ecological crises, where we need medical breakthroughs for things like Alzheimer's. It's not an ideal time in our history to jeopardize the leading edge of human development. Sure, people will still succeed in spite of DEI initiatives (though it's already worse than most people think), and sure, a sidelined genius may only cause a delay for certain inevitable inventions, but even then, what is the cost of a 10-year delay in a cure for Alzheimer's? A 10-year delay for hydrogen fuel cells that revolutionize energy systems? (And we could continue this analysis to include the local heroes, like the cost of an inspiring high school band teacher being replaced by a mediocre one).
It goes without saying that a DEI initiative which elevates a #2 person to a #1 spot will not magically give the #2 person the gifts and capacities of the #1 person. Therefore the only REAL way to address inequities (real or perceived) is to support and insist upon merit. Otherwise, in tearing down our most important contributors we'll all pay costs we cannot imagine.
I would hope that if this were all pointed out to the sincere leftist they'd realize that the meritocracy is the pinnacle of social justice and should be unflaggingly supported. If we appealed to their human core, they'd easily admit that they could care less about the "identity" of the person to invent the cure to their family member's illness (or whatever). To me it is this existential argument that is a fundamental defeat of any DEI policy, affirmative action, etc. The meritocracy realizes the ideal of BOTH honoring the individual AND offering greatest benefit to society.