While I'm sympathetic to the authors' inclination to attack these problems from the bottom-up, behavioral side, we need to recognize that the government has put its thumb on the scale in a way that can't be easily circumvented.
As I understand it, current civil-rights law often puts the burden on the employer to prove that it 𝘩𝘢𝘴𝘯'𝘵 created an unsafe or discriminatory work environment for members of a protected class. That's a big deal and can scare the Dickens out of upper management. Thus, when the employees of the 'Times complain that their black colleagues have been made "unsafe" by the decision to publish Senator Cotton, it's a complaint with teeth to it.
Beyond that, while it's easy to imagine the advantages of a workforce that's diverse in its attitudes, knowledge and cultures, the advantages to diversity along protected-class axes are, as far as I know, speculative. Yet it's the latter that is practically mandated by law, in that a lack of that kind of diversity can be taken as prima-facie evidence of illegal discrimination.
To be clear: I share the authors' opposition to Mr. Ramaswamy’s top-down enforcement of viewpoint diversity, but whatever course we take to deal with this problem should recognize the structural problem created by the civil-rights legal regime.
Great piece. The tendency for firms to champion political values is very worrying. Throughout the liberal canon, there's a consistent preoccupation with limiting the reach of politics; Friedman's essay is in this tradition. If firms champion political values, citizens have fewer places to hide from politics. In free societies, such spaces are vital.
More broadly, this problem reflects the hegemony of a particularly set of values. In very religious societies, religion intrudes into other spheres, such as politics and work. Originally, liberalism addressed such problems, reflecting its inception in religious societies. But increasingly, liberal values are hegemonic. As postmaterial values have spread among populations, associated with better economic conditions, several liberal causes have become more popular; most concern the autonomy of minority groups. Reflecting this hegemony, liberals have become increasingly intolerant, overlooking parts of the liberal tradition which concern freedom of speech.
In The Time Machine, H. G. Welles imagines a future in which the human race has degenerated into two sub-species: the Eloi, who are delicate, sensitive, and incapable of holding their own against any invasion of their safe space; and the vicious Morlocks, who trap Eloi at will for food.
Given current trends, can anyone project the time frame within which Americans will become Eloi for the more ruthless parts of humanity?
While I'm sympathetic to the authors' inclination to attack these problems from the bottom-up, behavioral side, we need to recognize that the government has put its thumb on the scale in a way that can't be easily circumvented.
As I understand it, current civil-rights law often puts the burden on the employer to prove that it 𝘩𝘢𝘴𝘯'𝘵 created an unsafe or discriminatory work environment for members of a protected class. That's a big deal and can scare the Dickens out of upper management. Thus, when the employees of the 'Times complain that their black colleagues have been made "unsafe" by the decision to publish Senator Cotton, it's a complaint with teeth to it.
Beyond that, while it's easy to imagine the advantages of a workforce that's diverse in its attitudes, knowledge and cultures, the advantages to diversity along protected-class axes are, as far as I know, speculative. Yet it's the latter that is practically mandated by law, in that a lack of that kind of diversity can be taken as prima-facie evidence of illegal discrimination.
To be clear: I share the authors' opposition to Mr. Ramaswamy’s top-down enforcement of viewpoint diversity, but whatever course we take to deal with this problem should recognize the structural problem created by the civil-rights legal regime.
Great piece. The tendency for firms to champion political values is very worrying. Throughout the liberal canon, there's a consistent preoccupation with limiting the reach of politics; Friedman's essay is in this tradition. If firms champion political values, citizens have fewer places to hide from politics. In free societies, such spaces are vital.
More broadly, this problem reflects the hegemony of a particularly set of values. In very religious societies, religion intrudes into other spheres, such as politics and work. Originally, liberalism addressed such problems, reflecting its inception in religious societies. But increasingly, liberal values are hegemonic. As postmaterial values have spread among populations, associated with better economic conditions, several liberal causes have become more popular; most concern the autonomy of minority groups. Reflecting this hegemony, liberals have become increasingly intolerant, overlooking parts of the liberal tradition which concern freedom of speech.
I wrote about this here, if people are interested: https://thomasprosser.substack.com/p/why-dont-liberals-support-free-speech
Apologies if you're not allowed to link to your own material - I'll delete!
In The Time Machine, H. G. Welles imagines a future in which the human race has degenerated into two sub-species: the Eloi, who are delicate, sensitive, and incapable of holding their own against any invasion of their safe space; and the vicious Morlocks, who trap Eloi at will for food.
Given current trends, can anyone project the time frame within which Americans will become Eloi for the more ruthless parts of humanity?