I've come across what appears intersecting and incompatible logic systems within academia (and society).
System one is what I call analytic logic: the merit of your argument or opinion is completely independent of your immutable characteristics. (Like MJ says, it doesn't matter if you're black or white).
If you dismiss the merit of an argument by attacking the person who made it, you've committed a logical fallacy. The peer review process in academia avoids this potential by hiding the author's identity from reviewers. The argument or study is judged on its own merit.
I call system two Identitarianism (some call it Neo-Marxism or Intersectionalism). With these rules, your ethnicity(ies), gender, and sexual orientation (etc.) are in play. Some people have more (and others less) merit because of their immutable characteristics.
System two seems backwards but the rationale goes as follows:
"Oppressed" groups (POC, women, trans people, gay/lesbian, poor people, etc) have access to ...
(1) the norms, belief systems, and experiences from the white, male, straight, rich, etc., (because it's the "dominant" culture they're exposed to)
(2) their own marginalized norms, belief systems, and experiences
Contrarily, the non-oppressed groups (white, men, straight people, wealthy, etc.) only have access to (1).
I would frame this intersection of logic as analytic logic versus lived experiences logic. It seems they are incompatible.
Am I wrong?