Jordan Peterson

is that it segregates people by race and ethnic identity and then makes the case that if there are any, oh, and sex as well and gender as well, and then makes the, and sexual preference for that matter, any idiot group identification category that you can possibly imagine, you make the case that if all those people and the intersection of all those groups aren't

is that it segregates people by race and ethnic identity and then makes the case that if there are any, oh, and sex as well and gender as well, and then makes the, and sexual preference for that matter, any idiot group identification category that you can possibly imagine, you make the case that if all those people and the intersection of all those groups aren't

statistically represented, statistically represented at precisely the level that a census would indicate that the system is systemically prejudiced. Yeah, well, so what? What are we supposed to believe as a consequence of that? The reason that 90% of people are nurses and 90% of women are nurses and 90% of engineers are men is because of systemic prejudice?

statistically represented, statistically represented at precisely the level that a census would indicate that the system is systemically prejudiced. Yeah, well, so what? What are we supposed to believe as a consequence of that? The reason that 90% of people are nurses and 90% of women are nurses and 90% of engineers are men is because of systemic prejudice?

statistically represented, statistically represented at precisely the level that a census would indicate that the system is systemically prejudiced. Yeah, well, so what? What are we supposed to believe as a consequence of that? The reason that 90% of people are nurses and 90% of women are nurses and 90% of engineers are men is because of systemic prejudice?

It couldn't possibly be that women and men are actually interested in other things, like psychologists have actually been claiming for about five decades difference in interest between men and women are the biggest differences between men and women. And so the idea that Well, I've talked about the bricklayer problem in many other places, but 99% of bricklayers are men.

It couldn't possibly be that women and men are actually interested in other things, like psychologists have actually been claiming for about five decades difference in interest between men and women are the biggest differences between men and women. And so the idea that Well, I've talked about the bricklayer problem in many other places, but 99% of bricklayers are men.

It couldn't possibly be that women and men are actually interested in other things, like psychologists have actually been claiming for about five decades difference in interest between men and women are the biggest differences between men and women. And so the idea that Well, I've talked about the bricklayer problem in many other places, but 99% of bricklayers are men.

I don't see the feminists clamoring to ensure that just exactly the same number of women become bricklayers, and just the same number of women, for example, are incarcerated in prison. So it's complete bloody nonsense, and it's worse than that, because it's radical leftist nonsense that's one step removed from Marxism itself. And so this is not a trivial problem. This is a major problem.

I don't see the feminists clamoring to ensure that just exactly the same number of women become bricklayers, and just the same number of women, for example, are incarcerated in prison. So it's complete bloody nonsense, and it's worse than that, because it's radical leftist nonsense that's one step removed from Marxism itself. And so this is not a trivial problem. This is a major problem.

I don't see the feminists clamoring to ensure that just exactly the same number of women become bricklayers, and just the same number of women, for example, are incarcerated in prison. So it's complete bloody nonsense, and it's worse than that, because it's radical leftist nonsense that's one step removed from Marxism itself. And so this is not a trivial problem. This is a major problem.

It's dependent on how you characterize human beings at the most fundamental level of analysis. They're either individuals who you rank order on the basis of competence, or they're classified according to the group identity. And those are very different worlds. And in my opinion, you don't wanna live in a world where people are classified by their racial identity.

It's dependent on how you characterize human beings at the most fundamental level of analysis. They're either individuals who you rank order on the basis of competence, or they're classified according to the group identity. And those are very different worlds. And in my opinion, you don't wanna live in a world where people are classified by their racial identity.

It's dependent on how you characterize human beings at the most fundamental level of analysis. They're either individuals who you rank order on the basis of competence, or they're classified according to the group identity. And those are very different worlds. And in my opinion, you don't wanna live in a world where people are classified by their racial identity.

That's called a racist world, by the way. So when we talk about DEI programs, we're not talking about some goddamn sweetness and light that's doled out by people who have nothing but love in their hearts. It's a complete bloody scam, and it's destroyed many institutions, and Harvard is definitely one of them. Okay, the clash.

That's called a racist world, by the way. So when we talk about DEI programs, we're not talking about some goddamn sweetness and light that's doled out by people who have nothing but love in their hearts. It's a complete bloody scam, and it's destroyed many institutions, and Harvard is definitely one of them. Okay, the clash.

That's called a racist world, by the way. So when we talk about DEI programs, we're not talking about some goddamn sweetness and light that's doled out by people who have nothing but love in their hearts. It's a complete bloody scam, and it's destroyed many institutions, and Harvard is definitely one of them. Okay, the clash.

escalating since Trump's second term began in January 2025, pits Harvard's academic autonomy against federal demands for sweeping reforms with billions in research funding at stake. Yeah, well, Harvard likes to think that what it's pitting is Harvard's academic autonomy against federal demands for sweeping reforms, but that's quite, that's complete rubbish as well.

escalating since Trump's second term began in January 2025, pits Harvard's academic autonomy against federal demands for sweeping reforms with billions in research funding at stake. Yeah, well, Harvard likes to think that what it's pitting is Harvard's academic autonomy against federal demands for sweeping reforms, but that's quite, that's complete rubbish as well.

escalating since Trump's second term began in January 2025, pits Harvard's academic autonomy against federal demands for sweeping reforms with billions in research funding at stake. Yeah, well, Harvard likes to think that what it's pitting is Harvard's academic autonomy against federal demands for sweeping reforms, but that's quite, that's complete rubbish as well.