Eegore
Serious Thumper
Offline
SuzukiSavage.com Rocks!
Posts: 9058
|
Not sure I agree with someone saying they are going to "define" something and then doesn't use the definition. He obviously chose a specific quote since the definition of equity does not come from the "Public Administration Literature", however the quote, does apply to his discussion points.
Unfortunately it's not a quote, its paraphrased if we are using Fredrickson as reference. I personally don't care much for somebody telling me that "Social Equity" is "defined" by X-quote, by X-person, when it isn't a quote and also isn't the definition that is used in public administration policy.
That's like me saying the "definition" of a motorcycle is taken from Gottlieb Daimler and Wilhelm Maybach who state a motorcycle is defined as a combustion motor two wheel machine designed for forward propulsion. Sure it applies to almost all motorcycles, but its not an actual quote, and many modern applications would broaden the "definition" to eliminate combustion and forward propulsion.
But if I like motorcycles I will ignore the details and just say the POINT is motorcycles are 2 wheeled automobiles.
Woke is broader than Marxism but closely related in application, it's also pointless in my opinion to argue against because most humans that use "Woke" are actually against the principles of it. They will be using the term long after it's "catchy" and used by anyone else.
What would have been valuable here is addressing the difference in US policy/legal definition of "Equality" versus "Equity" since Woke-policy proposals consistently mixes the two inappropriately which results in everyone else doing it.
The cultural appropriation evolutions seemed spot on and his assessment that the over-reaction is detrimental. The whole resisting Woke ideology, especially how it's done in the US, does nothing more than make is spread faster.
|
Pages: 1
