Comment The first part of the article... (Score 2) 273
The first part of The Guardian article put the onus on the racial part of DEI, which gives the false impression this concerns only minorities and is thus unumportant. It also puts the onus on specific topics of academic research which give the -again, false- impression that it touches "those left-wing topics" and is thus not that bad.
But i have talked with other researchers and it is absolutely everyone who is in the crosshairs. Grants for Ph.D and postdocs for subjects that sound as politically safe as theoretical mathematics or physics have been axed. This is not a problem of "those left wing people". Or, as i have heard "those gender studies and sociology people with funny hair colours"
Maths, science, engineering. Stuff with obscure jargon names that do not sound political. Axed. This is the problem of everyone who depends of the public sector that is, everyone in the long run. Because my private sector research depends on the fundamental science that is done by public research.
I work on private research so i am one of the last to be fed to the alligators but it doesn't mean anyone is safe.
The rest of the article is more general and interesting but often people just skim trough the first paragraphs. Once again, left wing press talks only to the left wing of the left, which leaves the others uninterested, too passive and late to the fight against fascism. And talking about the racial part of DEI is very clumsy because it is a hugely unpopular topic. A few weeks ago i stumbled on a poll that said that a majority of Americans thought the democratic party was defending the interest of "other people". This needs to change. All people who are not pro-fascist must find a way to talk to everyone. Not just some pet powerless niche public.