What am I going to write about here? Well to start:
Some people know it as “Diversity Equity and Inclusion” (aka “DEI,”) others know it by terms like “critical theory,” “social justice,” “inequality studies,” “fairness,” or even just “sociology.” Antagonists call it by other names: “woke,” “The Oppression Olympics,” or the dubiously creative “DIE”
This blog is a collection of thoughts about all of those things, and none of those things. “All” because the names above represent the current state of our discourse on identity and equality. “None” because there is a lot to say that is… well unsaid. There are perspectives and truths other wise buried under our discourse’s loudest talking points.
At the time of writing, the discourse is at quite an inflection point. The (second) wealthiest man in the world just actually wrote this sentence:
This is accompanied by a wave of eliminating diversity programs at major institutions, court cases, and political culture-war.
Wherever you stand, whatever your position within this discourse, you can’t deny its power to shape our perceptions, to stoke conflict, or even create solidarity. Hence, this Ghost Blog.
What is this about?
- Social identity, fairness, and meritocracy in the backdrop of technology and democratic polarization.
Why you might find my perspective interesting.
- I think like a social scientist with a very short attention span. Some people like that.
- I have learned from many feeble attempts to promote global equity and social change in the nonprofit sector.
- I currently work on mitigating bias and discrimination on online platforms, including on AI fairness at Google.
- I love a good evidence-based approach to social phenomena, but I often like to ponder bigger questions that have no easy answer.
- I am an insufferable internet sleuth.
What’s my deal? Where do I stand on the issues?
If there is one thing you need to know about me, it is that I constantly differentiate two things: ideas and institutions. What does that mean? Think of it as the difference between religion and organized religion. Religion represents ideas (e.g. moral and spiritual philosophies), while organized religions represent institutions, aka when organizations and structures are built around those ideas (e.g. doctrines for behavior, churches/mosques/synagogues). You may agree with the idea, but you may not agree with how the institution implements those ideas in practice. Hence, the question of “where one stands on religion” is a little irrelevant.
To use a different example, I partipicate in movements (a form of institution) when people come together and speak in unison for social change, political advocacy, or a moral philosophy. However, I don’t fuse my identity with these movements, to the point where I treat them as incapable of doing any wrong just because we are in alignment ideologically.
Accordingly, this makes me both an equity-advocate and equity-skeptic at the same time. I believe in ideas promoting equality, fairness, and justice for marginalized people. However, I have grown skeptical of whether modern institutions built around equity are conducive to actual social reconciliation. Sometimes they are overly prescriptive, sometimes they are overly concerned with aesthetics. If youre still confused, don’t worry, this dynamic requires more examples which I hope to cover over the course of my writing.
Realizing goals like racial justice and fairness relies not on unequivocal support for any one single movement or institution, but rather a constant state of introspection and reinvention of the way we bridge ideas and practice.
And that’s what this is about.
