1. "The University of California is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer"
2. "It is the policy of the University to undertake affirmative action, consistent with its obligations as a federal contractor, for minorities and women"
3. "All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, gender identity..."
This is how this is all widely and commonly understood: if you ask around whether “white men” are a “protected class” according to Civil Rights Act, most people will say that they aren’t. They in fact are, but that’s just the “fiction” part of the legal fiction here.
...or it really can't and it's quite clearly breaking the law?
The answer is, obviously, that the “adversity” is just an excuse, and they do in fact directly care about racial and sex composition of faculty and student body. Nobody’s fooled here, racial discrimination is the entire point of the exercise.
I'm reminded of the words of Malcolm X—"If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out that's not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made. And they haven't even pulled the knife out much less heal the wound. They won't even admit the knife is there."
Americans may have struck down de jure segregation (big applause!) but we're still de facto segregated a generation or two later. K-12 schools serving predominantly black communities have less funding, less extra-curriculars, less honors/AP courses (UCLA expects a 4.5 GPA, have fun getting one wifhout lots of advanced courses available). Don't get me started on the racial discrepancy in being able to get childcare or pay for ACT/SAT prep courses that all my white peers did in their summers.
Affirmative action is discriminatory in the sense it admits there's more to applications than your number, as much as that irks SWEs who love to reduce people to an algorithm. You can't just say "we have no black students because no qualified black students applied!". There are certainly qualified minorities, maybe the way in which you're measuring "qualified" has a racial bias? To give one example, the father of SATs and AP courses was a racist eugenicist who thought (correctly, but for the wrong reasons) standarized tests would help stop minority admissions since the 1920s were all about the idea that race and intelligence are linked. [1] Do we think that intention is totally irrelevant to the outcome of these tests? There's a reason educators don't like them! Cheaper to use scantrons than to try and assess with any nuance.
[0] https://slate.com/business/2019/09/harvard-admissions-affirm...
[1] https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/racis...
It really isn't, and trying to force absurd 1984 references makes absolutely no sense at all.
Think about it for a second: if you already feel you have the absolute best candidate for a spot already working at your side, or you create a position specifically to get that person to work for you, does that mean you are racist or sexist or, as you chose to imply with your absurd comparison, fascist?
Because the accusation has absolutely nothing to do with doublespeak, and given the fundamental difference between the meaning of doublespeak and the case discussed then it's so far-fetched that just reads as a desperate attempt to gratuitously pin the fascist label.
> They are literally making contradictory statements while refusing to make any logical association between them.
If you knew the definition of doublespeak and read the article and the comments you'd quickly understand the absurdity of your accusation.
Let's break it down:
Statement 3 days all applicants will be considered, regardless of criteria. One can consider a candidate while preferentially selecting based on some criteria.
For instance, a common way organizations will operate is to use minority status as a tie breaker between two equally qualified candidates. Both candidates were given full consideration, satisfying #3, while some prefer was used to provide for disadvantaged groups, satisfying #1 and #2.