At what point though is it incumbent upon the person with the "bad (cultural) habit" to change them, ethically? When it leads to harm? When should a cultural habit that leads to possible harm be excused? — schopenhauer1

You seem to be conflating the questions of self-correction and other-correction, which I want to keep distinct. I already answered your first question: "when it is self-consciously recognized to be a bad habit and the necessary resources to make a change are available." What is bad and what is harmful are not identical notionally, but if someone thinks that only harm is bad then they will only self-consciously recognize something to be a bad habit if it is harmful.

(We can only self-excuse when we lack the available resources to change, for the very fact that we are considering excusing shows that we already see the habit or action to be bad.)

Self-recognizing as bad habit seems to be vague then. You are stating a truism rather than a normative course of action.

@Schopenhauer1 There is a very long article in the New York Times today (no link because it's behind a paywall) about the University of Michigan's DEI efforts, which, to sum it up, aren't accomplishing much despite a $250 million dollar DEI expenditure over the last 8 years. My point isn't to discuss DEI, but to comment on "When can something legitimately be blamed on culture?"

UM is trying very hard to change its culture, for better or worse? -- I have my suspicions, but I've never been there--I don't know.

What happens to a person when they are, or believe they have been discriminated against is both cultural (how our thinking is shaped by the experiences of our culture), emotional (directly and indirectly), and a combination of thinking and gut response.

UM has engaged in an extensive program of cultural engineering, trying to achieve "a life of seamless belonging" for everyone, but specifically for the 13 specific minority categories. (Everybody else apparently already 'belongs'.) To achieve this lofty goal, "The initial planning ultimately yielded nearly 2,000 “action items” across campus — a tribute to Michigan’s belief in the power of bureaucratic process to promote change. “It’s important to focus on our standard operating procedures and worry less about attitudes,” said Sellers, who was appointed Michigan’s first chief diversity officer. “Attitudes will follow.”

To make a long story short, after 8 years, black enrollment stands at 4%--the same place it was in 1970. That's a major failure, because the whole DEI program was in response to SCOTUS invalidating affirmative action in admissions in several decisions. Another failure is that there is more conflict on campus involving more and more subtle discriminations.

What bureaucracy doesn't seem to be able to change is the emotional consequences of events that are perceived by individuals to be discriminatory. So, a student is accidentally 'misgendered', one minority student is confused with another, or a 'triggering word' is read from a text in a literature class. Rage follows. Complaints are filed. Hearings are held. Notes are put in files. Around and around this goes.

All of this can be properly charged to the larger "Culture". But can a "culture" change itself?

Administrators can change the rules for tax accounting. Accountants will read the rules and apply them. Or not, in which case, the change will be litigated, and the accounting rule will be clarified. A drug can be defined as the standard treatment for cancer. Physicians will use the drug, and because it leads to cures, the standard will hold. If it doesn't, the standard won't hold. Agronomists can specify how much nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus to apply to fields for given soil types and given crops. Farmers read the recommendations and follow them, and get good yields. If they don't, they'll try other combinations.

All that is culture, too, but not much emotion is involved in accounting rules, medical guidelines, or fertilization routines. No one feels insulted if their doctor recommends a monoclonal antibody for their cancer instead of a platinum-derived drug.

Achieving harmony, belonging, equality, opportunity, happiness, fulfillment, peace, etc. are just not easily achieved by bureaucratic direction, These good things have been achieved by billions of people in various settings, but they did it by struggle, conflict, and persistence--not through bureaucratic direction.

Individuals who are struggling to climb social ladders have to strive against opposition, which will predictably be provided by both competitors and the people who occupy the rungs above them. They may succeed, they may not. But struggle is how cultures achieve equilibrium, and people tend to achieve goals. And strivers have a big emotional element in their efforts. They will have intense emotional experiences as a result of their efforts. Some of these will be pleasant, some painful. That's life.

Another point: I used to have more confidence in social engineering. The older I get, the more I learn, the less certain I am that we can engineer our culture for specific ends. Creating economic opportunity is one thing; making people use the opportunity is something else. Wanting people to play well together is one thing, making them play well is something else.

UM should just admit more blacks, queers, hispanics, etc, and then let the chips fall where they may.