I do indeed believe in objective reality, but enlightenment also taught me that my perspective can only ever be subjective as well as I can only hope that I can approach these values to a sufficient degree. This is an important realization and a potent argument to disarm a lot of DEI initiatives. Because it often proposes to be able to discern inequality objectively and redistribute it in a just manner. Impossible from an equally subjective perspective. And they do that by violating the values first proposed. Subjectively and objectively they simply do away with them completely.
Abstracted further, the way you describe some DEI ideas react to the enlightenment ideas, is to say that idealism doesn't solve real problems (color blindness is nice an all, but inequalities remain). That is not wrong even if everyone indeed believed in equality. Everyone wants to provide disability access and is in favor of that. But ask yourself how often you actually acted on that wish. Or how often you forgot about it. But there are pragmatic ways to solve it without discriminating the healthy at all.
But don't let all that fool you. This isn't a battle about objective or subjective reality. It is much more simple. It is about monarchy and people believing their ideas makes them your betters. This is what prestigious institutions want to sell in the modern world where logistics of knowledge come into reach of everyone. The need to differentiate themselves and their institutions. People that believe they should cut the pieces of the pie you deserve in their opinion. One as subjective as everyone else's. Why is it successful? Because it instills fears in its followers. That there are evil racist and sexist people that are out to get you. In response the believers do away with enlightenment values. I believe it to be wrong that there are deeper thoughts behind it. In the end these are just people with special interests trying to sell their religion. The Alex Jones of Harvard. I wouldn't even say they are smarter in selling their product. Maybe a bit more subtle.
Their failure is that they are absolutely incapable to connect to the working class in a competitive economy. No, psychologically safety and bad words aren't on the mind of people that try to get by and fear the need to justify their jobs every minute.
Abstracted further, the way you describe some DEI ideas react to the enlightenment ideas, is to say that idealism doesn't solve real problems (color blindness is nice an all, but inequalities remain). That is not wrong even if everyone indeed believed in equality. Everyone wants to provide disability access and is in favor of that. But ask yourself how often you actually acted on that wish. Or how often you forgot about it. But there are pragmatic ways to solve it without discriminating the healthy at all.
But don't let all that fool you. This isn't a battle about objective or subjective reality. It is much more simple. It is about monarchy and people believing their ideas makes them your betters. This is what prestigious institutions want to sell in the modern world where logistics of knowledge come into reach of everyone. The need to differentiate themselves and their institutions. People that believe they should cut the pieces of the pie you deserve in their opinion. One as subjective as everyone else's. Why is it successful? Because it instills fears in its followers. That there are evil racist and sexist people that are out to get you. In response the believers do away with enlightenment values. I believe it to be wrong that there are deeper thoughts behind it. In the end these are just people with special interests trying to sell their religion. The Alex Jones of Harvard. I wouldn't even say they are smarter in selling their product. Maybe a bit more subtle.
Their failure is that they are absolutely incapable to connect to the working class in a competitive economy. No, psychologically safety and bad words aren't on the mind of people that try to get by and fear the need to justify their jobs every minute.