So you're acknowledging that a lot of your ideas simply aren't realistic...but you're putting them forth in order to advance the dialogue itself so that other ideas you have potentially CAN be implemented?
I still need to read The 1619 Project, so I can't comment on its content, one way or the other, at this point.
If you're admitting to playing "Oppression Olympics" by centering race above most other intersectional attributes, you are destined to fail. That just isn't where a majority of people (including the apathetic ones whom you say need to be reached) are -- and they're not going to get there. And, even if they did...I'm not so sure I'd WANT to see them get there, because I'm diametrically opposed to "oppression-ranking." Yes, you are right that, in many cases, it can be equivocated and misappropriated in ways that are absurd. That's no better than alleging that race will ALWAYS supersede EVERYTHING ELSE (which, I realize may not be literally what you're saying; but that's the insinuation that self-proclaimed social justice advocates will often make).
Your constant allegation of "defensiveness" is clearly gaslighting as a way to forcefeed your dogmatic Kafka traps down people's throats. Nice try, sunshine -- but we can see through it.
Regarding the issues of representative leadership and confronting omission error -- I'm not saying D&I courses should be eliminated. But their content must -- and will -- be vetted.
As far as the results of D&I, it could be mixed.
For example, the White woman you mentioend who may have chosen not to pursue the promotion because she realizes she may be underqualified for it, and she doesn't want to see it denied to a highly-qualified Black or Indigenous person: I can see the benefit in that, because it involves combining representation with excellence.
On the other hand: are the White people who you say will be passed over (for promotion) or outright demoted undergoing that change-in-status BECAUSE they are discovered to be inept and/or underqualified? Or is their removal from the position being done to "make a point" for no reason other than they possess a shade of skin color that happens to overrepresent a plethora of unqualified/underqualified people?
You can say "it's not personal" all you want -- but when you are peddling academic elitism at the expense of people's lives, you are making it personal because your explicit intent is to ruin lives in the name of lifting others up. You can deny_deny_deny all you want -- but you've shown the world who you are.
