[dataflow]

> Are you saying you are concerned about

No, I haven't said anything about my concerns nor did I intend to.

> DIE is also implemented all over the government

That would make for a better argument with some examples, instead of pointing to universities and private institutions etc.

> Are you saying that getting a high-status private education, eg. harvard or yale, or a high power private company role has no influence on you wielding political power?

No. But "influence > 0" is not the correct criterion.

[asabjorn]

I think I am a bit confused then. We were discussing meritocracy. Are you claiming affirmative action or DEI has no effect on meritocracy? Or that meritocracy in your opinion shouldn't be a consideration?

> That would make for a better argument with some examples, instead of pointing to universities and private institutions etc.

Why do you think public universities and schools are not government? They are under political founding, oversight, funding, and control so that doesn't make sense to me.

>No. But "influence > 0" is not the correct criterion.

What is the correct criterion in your opinion?

[dataflow]

> Are you saying that you think DIE is justified in government, universities and private institutions? Trying to understand your position here

Sorry, as I mentioned, it's not my intention to state my position on DIE here.

> Why do you think public universities and schools are not government? They are under political founding, oversight, funding, and control so that doesn't make sense to me.

You're binarizing things that aren't binary. It depends a lot on what you're talking about. e.g., K-12 and graduate school are not the same in this regard, and different universities/states are different. Public universities have quite a bit of independence from the government and politics; sometimes this is even literally written in the state constitutions. Moreover, institutions have lots of different funding sources. You can't just point at "the government is funding this therefore this is the government". The actual influence the government exerts on an entity compared to all the other influences on that entity is a huge factor here.

> What is the correct criterion in your opinion?

The influence has to be "large", for some sensible definition of large. That definition should probably compare the influence with other sources of influence somehow.

And if you're making a sweeping statement about the whole country, the criterion should probably include something that applies to a large chunk of the relevant institutions in the country.

[asabjorn]

> You can't just point at "the government is funding this therefore this is the government". The actual influence the government exerts on an entity compared to all the other influences on that entity is a huge factor here.

Public universities and K-12 are actually owned by state governments, and they are subject to FOIA and constitutional constraints like all government institutions. For instance, they are not supposed to push a state religion.

> The influence has to be "large", for some sensible definition of large. That definition should probably compare the influence with other sources of influence somehow.

So are you arguing that meritocratic considerations should be secondary to other considerations decided with political power?