The Claudine Gay Story is Exposing the Truth About DEI
“DEI cannot survive in competitive environments where outcomes truly matter”
This is one of the main reasons why the liberal media worked so hard not to cover the story.
From the STARRS Blog:
Somewhere out there, a Claudine Gay is commanding an Air Force squadron, an Army regiment, or a Navy ship
Harvard President Claudine Gay’s recent testimony before the U.S. Congress and subsequent exposure to her academic history have revealed much about the true nature and purpose of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).
The most significant “A-ha!” moment from Le Affair Gay is that DEI only “works” in non-competitive environments such as government and academia.
The principles of “diversity” and “equity” implicitly assume entities and organizations will continue along their current trajectory regardless of who’s in charge.
DEI discounts merit, ability, and leadership and assumes as a matter of ideological gospel that “diversity” will more than make up for their loss.
Although this might be true in glacial bureaucracies at Harvard University, the U.S. Department of Education, or Los Angeles City Hall, where funding rolls in at the start of every fiscal year and there is virtually no accountability for poor performance, DEI cannot survive in competitive environments where outcomes truly matter.
Harvard is the paradigm example. The university will continue to exist in spite of Ms. Gay’s shortcomings as it has for centuries.
Eager students from around the world will line up for a chance at a place in the incoming class. Tuition and grants will continue to pour into the university’s coffers.
Because of its secure position in academia and absence of any real competitive threats, Harvard has the luxury of making the conscious decision to place a person in a leadership position who, on the available evidence, is unqualified and incapable of effective leadership.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“Although this might be true in glacial bureaucracies… where funding rolls in at the start of every fiscal year and there is virtually no accountability for poor performance, DEI cannot survive in competitive environments where outcomes truly matter.”
This is demonstrably false.
It’s like saying that in a competitive environment with ICE vehicles, EVs cannot survive.
All that’s needed is for government to warp the market by heavily subsidizing the inefficient competitor and heavily penalizing the efficient one. And boom, equity is achieved, at great financial cost to those who are not preferred, and emotional cost to those who have to work with the preferred.
It’s simply a Harrison Bergeron world.
And when there is a demonstrable breakdown or failure, the blame is deflected in every direction other than the actual cause. Exhibit A: Gay’s op-ed in the NY Times. Exhibit B: “news” pieces that she was hounded out by racist conservatives who could not abide a black woman as president of Harvard, as if her plagiarism and failure fumbling in Congress had nothing to do with it.
That is as much of an issue as is the DEI-caused incompetence because if you cannot bring yourself to admit forthrightly what the problem is you cannot solve it.
There was a city council person in Chapel Hill who blamed homophobia every time one of his stupid plans was rejected. Of course, that was moot when it was revealed that he hadn’t paid taxes in 10 years and he quickly disappeared. Homophobia don’t play to the IRS. A question that I have had for some time is “why don’t they ever get candidates from marginalized groups who don’t come with a ton of baggage and flaws (and fugly glasses)?” I am starting to think that perhaps everyone from said groups is deeply flawed. One reason they hated Ben Carson is that he didn’t come with baggage, which exposed their defects in glaring detail. If you think DEI is hard on whites, it is double that on blacks who try to leave the plantation.