Not on political hot topics. It's for wars of attrition, negotiating the WP:FOO meta-discussion wars.

But that is a grossly exaggerated meaning of the word. Not everything mean or unpleasant is "harassment" - esp. if the target is not even aware. Whether any criticism or attack is persistent or continued or tormenting enough (some keywords from a dictionary definition) is subjective to a readily weaponized degree.

Can you describe some of the "harassment of individuals" that took place in that subreddit? For those of us not regular participants, who saw only a few recent example postings, they were embarrassing photos / comments about people. But by what definition of the word 'harassment' apply?

"The ideal is that students who were struggling would get help, regardless of any other factors."

So the implication here is that the only reason achievement would be different is because struggling students were denied help based on their demographics?

"very similar verbiage is applied all over the place"

To require "equal achievement"? Really? (And I was asking about the school system.)

"I doubt it's actually achievable"

Exactly. They're requiring the _results_ to have certain statistical properties. That means that if the provisional results were to have politically-incorrect correlations, they would have to be suppressed (e.g., by grading on different curves per identity-group demographic, or by offering different courses/evaluation). The "intersectionalism" of it all will make the post-facto compensation even trickier - good luck!) So long to a standard course, with standardized testing.

I'm curious whether this "equal achievement" verbiage has ever been applied to other fields of study under that system, and how (if!) they managed to satisfy it.

"signing up" may be a prerequisite, but definitely not the same thing as "achievement". ... unless they give marks for mere attendance

"(in-effect-)equal achievement" means "equal compulsion" only in some language that is not English.

(If it were simply about "equal access", most of the quoted paragraph - listing identity group after identity group - wouldn't have to be there.)

"Students' access to and achievement in computer science must not be predictable on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, language, religion, sexual orientation, cultural affiliation, or special needs."

How does anyone imagine that is achievable, except by not marking ... performance?

"one could amass crippling debt as a result, not of [...] reckless borrowing and spending, but of going to college"

That is a false dichotomy. For some examples of "going to college", it is exactly reckless borrowing and spending.

"There are obvious common sense reasons for why those sorts of laws are in place"

"Unobvious common nonsense" would be more accurate.

... not to those who make their living championing the issue.

There is no contradiction between "show me the money" and "ethics and integrity".

It's even sillier than that ... "[the figure] also includes tax credits and rebates to buyers of solar panels and electric cars" ... in other words "subsidies" given not even to Musk/companies, but to customers.

"some of them will see what is being done to them"

Don't you feel guilty about abusing the english language this way, by using passive voice to insinuate an affirmative harmful action by someone? And yet, in reality, all we're talking about is resistance to being made to give our stuff to someone else. It's not a harmful action - it's at the very most neglectful inaction, and even that only if you presume some sort of inherent moral claim on other people's labours.

The mechanics are lovely, but it's funny to define "complete life cycle" their way, as though death/destruction were an interesting or difficult achievement of life (or machine operation).