Social Justice™ priestess Anita Sarkeesian, many years ago, made a prescient observation about her own ideology: “When you start learning about systems, everything is sexist. Everything is racist. Everything is homophobic. And you have to point it all out.”
What economic opportunities for such ideological entrepreneurs open up when everything is systemically racist!
What the “everything is racist” position means in practice, among other implications, is that any industry in which each defined category of protected class is not perfectly represented as a proportion of workers in any particular profession is, by definition, systemically racist.
So it is with veterinary medicine, per this brave and stunning HuffPost columnist:
“Why have I not seen any Black veterinarians? Why do none of the doctors look like me?” It made me realize that my dream would likely be harder to achieve or possibly not achievable at all, just because I am Black.
This is precisely the kind of racial grievance-based bitterness that the social engineers wish to instill in racial minorities so as to create permanent, intractable social division within the society, which can then be leveraged as a wedge to preclude any possibility of a united front against the ruling class. This tactic is called “divide and conquer,” and it has been utilized by empires since at least the Roman days, later arguably perfected by colonial Great Britain, particularly in the Indian subcontinent by exploiting already-present tribal rivalries.
Via Ilia Xypolia:
British rule was certainly to a large extent based upon dividing the local population. Therefore, the empire de facto benefited from the hostile and rivalrous relations between two communities. The important question here is whether it set up a divisive mechanism through which any inter-communal problems would be exploited or an advantage was gained by simply being a tertius gaudens.
Tertius gaudens literally means a rejoicing third that is, a party that benefits from a conflict between two other parties. The ‘divide and rule’ strategy has been described as an essential feature of imperial policies. British rulers adopted the ‘divide and rule’ policy allied to territorial separation through segregation and partition. The imperial governments divided populations into distinct groups on the basis of linguistics, religion, ethnicity and race.
Continuing via HuffPost:
Veterinary medicine is one of the least diverse occupations in America. As of 2023, Black veterinarians make up about 2% of the veterinary profession. Minorities may not have exposure to opportunities in veterinary medicine; U.S. colleges and universities of veterinary medicine are not actively seeking minorities, and the lack of minorities in this field also minimizes the opportunities for mentorship for this demographic…
Diversity and inclusion are not just words. As practices, they are ways to bridge the gap of unfamiliarity and give qualified individuals opportunities to thrive in positions that previously have not been accessible to them.
There is no such thing as systemic racial discrimination in the United States any longer — at least not against the preferred races (non-white). Racially discriminating against non-whites is literally illegal and punishable by civil penalties that would potentially represent an existential threat to the guilty organization. Veterinary schools nationwide almost certainly bend over backward to recruit “diverse” students to meet their DEI metrics as a shield against accusations of racism from outlets like HuffPost.
Of course, there are never any alternative explanations offered by ideologically possessed people like this lady for a lack of perfect proportional statistical representation of all so-called minority groups aside from systemic discrimination. Disparate levels of interest in any particular field, disparate skill sets, or other potential reasons are automatically off the table as causal explanations and derided as “racist,” “sexist,” or whatever the applicable pejorative is in any given instance.
For instance, were one to pose the question, “Why are there not more female infantry soldiers in the U.S. military?” to an intersectional feminist, the answer would certainly not be that “women are less interested in military combat as a general rule than men.” Rather, it would be a litany of Social Justice™ talking points about artificially manufactured gender norms, etc. The same result could be expected with the questions, “Why aren’t more men preschool teachers?” “Why don’t more East Asians play hockey in the NHL?” and so on.
The explanations for such questions are always unfairly enforced and synthetic social norms, systemic discrimination, etc.