Category: Diversity

By on

Jann Wenner, publisher of Rolling Stone, just gave a master class on why diversity is important. He is hawking his book on the Masters of Rock and Roll — all who happen to be white men. Wenner, also, happens to be a white man and claims that Blacks and women don’t “articulate” at the same level. What this means, I haven’t the foggiest. But I am betting it is that he feels comfortable talking to them, they speak a common vernacular which he easily understands and thus is able to flesh out these ideas better when he writes. He also admits that perhaps he shouldn’t have used the word master because it sounds like he is limiting the illustrious designation of master to white men which wasn’t his intention. But he did, after all, choose the title and he now rightfully is defending the absence of a more diverse group of master musicians.

This is why diversity matters. People’s opinions about the world are influenced by where they live and who surrounds them. Since Blacks and women might articulate in a different way, people, like Jann Wenner, may not be as comfortable with their experience and what they are saying. In order to understand their experience and their influence on music, it might be helpful to sit down and have a chat with them in order to understand the music world. Wenner clearly has no interest in doing this and that is a big problem.

What is more alarming is that nobody tried to persuade him that excluding women and Blacks might be a bad idea. I am wondering who he worked with on this book and am surprised that nobody brought this omission to his attention. How could this book gone all the way to production and distribution without someone bringing this up is shocking to me. Maybe if someone would have brought this to his attention sooner, he might have had a better explanation ready when questioned about it. He is welcome to his opinion, but then so am I. As it is, he sounds like a racist sexist idiot. I hope I articulated that in a way that could be understood.

By on

Right now, Conservatives generally run into two types — the raving lunatics who clearly state that the world is going to Hell in a hand basket and it is all due to Transexuals or Diversity Training or both. And then there are the intellectuals who hide their lunacy and try to show a reasonable face but who, when all is said and done, are essentially saying the world is going to Hell in a hand basket and it is all due to Transexuals and DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) Training. The first group is easy to spot because they make no bones about what they are talking about. The second group is a little more difficult because they couch their lunacy with a lot of multi-syllable words, foreign phrases and references to 19th century philosophical debates that have nothing to do with the subject at hand but diverts readers from the madness of the author’s point. Peter Thiel’s recent speech/article regarding diversity falls into this later type of rant.

Thiel’s erudition is indeed impressive. He went to Stanford where he engaged in great philosophical debates. In the process of his education, he co-authored a book called the Diversity Myth. He says he made some important points there but I am not sure what they are because he fails to review them and assumes that everyone knows what he is talking about. I didn’t. But, if you were to ask me, I think that he is against diversity training of any kind. Most importantly, Thiel made a billion or so making some smart moves in Tech.

Since Thiel is a billionaire, people take him seriously. He tries to be serious in this article and his initial point is worth looking at. He thinks that people are being distracted from the real problems in Academia by focusing on DEI. There is something to be said for that position. Budgets need to be allocated based on highest priorities. The university’s core mission is Education and Research. If DEI is draining limited resources from Education and Research, then, perhaps, the universities should reexamine their priorities. But then Thiel reveals his real worries which is that proponents of DEI are crazy and are destroying university education. He brings up silly classes that have taken root in Academia and the unreasonable rules these administrators are foisting on the schools.

From there, he pivots to how unreasonably expensive the Real Estate market has become in such a short time. Which, yeah, he is right about but how is this relevant to DEI is unclear. How is DEI is affecting the price of real estate? Thiel is not the kind of guy who will let a lack of connection stop him from spreading a good conspiracy theory. He hints that there might be some conspiracy involving bankers and university DEI administrators. At least, I think that it is what he is saying. I’m not sure. It’s all very Washington dark government with enough caution that he could deny any meaning someone has ascribed to him and also be absolutely correct if he likes their interpretation. Are you still with me?

Thiel continues to roll forward with his worries and concerns and even more conspiracy theories. He pivots back to the university. He points to the division of the university — the Humanities and the Sciences. The Humanities, in Thiel’s eyes, is full of crazy people with crazy ideas who have made the Humanities so ridiculous that they are an easy target for conservative critics. But that is not the problem. It is the Sciences that is the better target because the Sciences continue to have some respect within the general public. Conservative critics pretty much leave the Sciences alone because of their strength which is precisely why conservatives should spend some time harping about the Sciences. If conservatives can take down the Sciences, then Humanities and, thus, the university will fall with them. And all will be good with the world.

Where would Thiel attack the Sciences? Thiel believes that scientists within Academia are just scamming for government grants to fund their worthless projects. The science is useless and the scientists are in a massive coverup to hide the uselessness. Again, little evidence is given to back this point. He does point out that a Nobel prize winning scientist believes that in the 50,000 papers on his area of expertise that only about 25 are good. Which sounds about right to me. How many groundbreaking discoveries can there be? I would imagine that most papers would be discussing mundane research topics. Like with most things. There are only so many geniuses around. Someone with an ego like Thiel should already know that. He is just wrong about it. I know this to be a fact because every day I read about new discoveries in science — better cancer treatments, space ships traveling to the far reaches of the solar system and giving the world glimpses of other planets, and a greater understanding of how the body operates and how the earth’s environment works. How could this be if nothing at all is happening in the Sciences?

But let’s get back to DEI. I promise I would like to but I am afraid I am at the mercy of Thiel. He tosses lot of dots into the air, keeps them flying about but he never makes much of an effort to connect them. So, DEI, yeah, well, honestly I don’t have a clue what he is driving at and I read the damn thing twice. I was about to try a third time but I thought Jesus I tried this twice. I am not that dim, he is incoherent. He isn’t going to get any more coherent on a third reading.

Let me end with Thiel’s concluding statement where he completely goes off the rails. Well, not completely, he doesn’t want to shed his seemingly rational front he is working on so, instead, he comes off as confusing. He writes:

“So in conclusion—and this is a simplification, perhaps a distortion, but I think you know what I mean—it would be healthier that, whenever someone mentions DEI, you just think CCP.”

He undermines his own point by saying it is a simplification and perhaps a distortion. So how does this additional information help me help understand what he is saying? If it is a simplification and a distortion maybe Thiel should find a better way of saying it so that it isn’t a simplification and a distortion. Next he assuming I know what DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) and CCP (Chinese Communist Party) mean. I didn’t. Then, I discovered what they did mean and I was even more confused. DEI departments are actually Chinese Communists. WTF. Is he saying that CCP has infiltrated DEI departments in universities to such a degree that the DEI, being an arm of the CCP, is plotting to overthrow of the American government? Or is he saying that the DEI act like the CCP? Either reading seems unsubstantiated from the information Thiel provides.

This seems to be nothing more than a rant with some conspiracy theories gently tossed in so as not to scare away reasonable readers. Yet Thiel ruins it all at the last minute. He couldn’t resist talking crazy It is all good and fine to be critical of universities. Go for it but I thought a tenet of conservative thinking is that reform is better than revolution. Thiel isn’t after reform. No matter how he tries to mute his rant, it is rant – devoid of facts or even a coherent argument, and chockablock full of wild conspiracy theories. It is worrisome that a seemingly rational tech billionaire believes this utter bull shit.

By on

Wall Street Journal believes that trying to attain diversity sidetracked the management of the Silicon Valley Bank to focus on diversity as opposed to managing the assets of the bank. What really happened is that WSJ didn’t want to place the blame on bad management working in a banking system that is lightly regulated. And what better villain in this little disaster drama than diversity. Not bad investments. Not bad management decisions. Not that nobody is really looking at them despite the fact that they will be backed up by the Federal Government. No bad business practices couldn’t possibly be the problem here. It makes much more sense to say that management was too focused on diversity goals to do their real jobs.

It also gives them a chance to take a dig at one of their favorite bugaboo — diversity. If only the company wasn’t so woke, this would have never happened. Being woke caused the management to worry more about diversity than making money. It is also a subtle dig at minorities and women who, of course, make up a portion of the management team. Women and minorities are, as you all know, more concerned about diversity than making money. If only the bank had been run by old white men, who only care about making money, this wouldn’t be a problem.

There is no way to prove them wrong. It is impossible to measure. And nobody would ever admit to it, at least, no one who wants to continue in banking. And, don’t cry for these managers because I bet these managers will find future employment in banking. Which is a shame. Nobody with real power will get punished because banks will always be rescued. The people who run banks know that. So taking risks won’t be punished because the government will bail out the banks because, well, if they didn’t, the whole economy would go down the tubes. So why not bet the house on number 7? What’s there to lose?

The irony is that WSJ reported the real reasons the bank collapsed in their article which is actually quite easy to understand. The bank invested too much money in Federal Bonds. This means they could be affected badly if interest rates rose. The Fed has been signaling for months that they were going to raise interest rates. The bank management didn’t make any changes in their investments that might have protected their assets. The Fed raised the rates. Somebody publicly pointed out their weak position and a bank run ensued.

But, no, upon reflection, diversity goals are so distracting to management teams. How could they focus on their investments when they needed to hire a diverse work force? That is far better explanation. It’s in the Wall Street Journal after all.