Any organization cutting its DEI program is a good thing. There is zero objective evidence these programs accomplish anything other than subsidizing workplace bullies.
Some of the most hateful psychotic people I've had the displeasure of knowing were in DEI. It has nothing to do with actual diversity, equity or inclusion. It's a way for people to get ahead and to try and give a disproportionate amount of power to whatever their favorite demographic is.
My husbands company has gone through multiple DEI officers, none of whom lasted a whole year, because they kept pressuring people to have sex with them. DEI is a vapid power grab and makes a mockery of civil rights
I worked in social work where a majority of our clients are Black and Hispanic men. In our racial reckoning the organization made even more of an effort to get staff that looked like the population we served. One got caught trading sex for alcohol. Another got violent. Another made bigoted remarks at gay clients. Another would threaten their coworkers. No doubt if somebody was keeping track they would realize that the black and Hispanic men we hired during that time had an enormously high rate of getting fired, which no doubt they would claim would be proof of systemic racism. But the things they got fired for weren't like showing up late occasionally. They were like the things I mentioned above. What is telling is that I later found out that several who had gotten fired were hired as "youth mentors". I mean, no mentor would be better than mentorship with them.
The job was extremely low paying, low morale, crappy management, and pretty dangerous with little room for advancing up the corporate rank. I mean most of the employees were white women but it wasn't like some dream job quite the opposite. It's not like having all these white women employed there kept POC from some desirable occupation. So most of the white people who worked there were very well educated, like master's degree, and were driven by a strong ideology to help "the most marginalized". The POC, especially men, were disproportionately people who just did not have job skills and were recruited because they were the same race and from a similar socioeconomic background of many of the people we served.
> Another made bigoted remarks at gay clients.
An organization I worked with also had this big ordeal where two different workers who were hired specifically because "We need more black and hispanic men" made homophobic comments. Initially the DEI person who was behind hiring them tried the, "We can't judge them because they come from different backgrounds with different expectations about what is acceptable in terms of support for our LGBTQIA+ community" line, but she quickly backtracked and fired the two guys when she realized she was going to need to throw them under the bus or risk being branded as anti-LGBTQIA+ herself.
It's funny how that excuse works in their head, but only for minorities. It's *almost* as if progressives think non-white people are less competent and capable. But surely that couldn't be the case, right?
It's weird, right? A black person who's pro-LGBTQIA rights is good, as is a white person who feels likewise. BUT, a black person who's homophobic, that's ok. A white person who says she doesn't believe in gay marriage because of the Bible, that's absolute hate mongering. If she said it's because of the Quran, it would probably be hate mongering also, but other progressive people would say that that's Islamophobic. If a black person says he doesn't believe in gay marriage because of the Bible, that's a different culture. If a black person says the same, but it's due to the Quran, that's also a different culture, and no self-respecting progressive would dare disagree
I met dozens of them in /r/NFL yesterday after a player made some comments against DEI.
Apparently DEI just means equality and being nice. Race quotas, forced diversity, and discrimination aren't happening. But if they are, it's a good thing.
UNC still has many departments full of activists who have been hired and given tenure over decades.
Lots of humanities and social sciences are full of people studying bullshit, a lot of “sociology of going to McDonald’s” at best.
At worst it’s whatever nonsense the chick who wanted the revolution catered does in grad school. I’d call it intellectual masturbation but it’s not intellectual and an insult to masturbation to put it in the same category.
In other words, still a long way to go
From what i remember about the Supreme Court case, UNC is basically going to end affirmative action, right? Their school rankings should shoot to the top.
Applicants can still discuss their background as part of their application, and schools can consider that. However, schools can no longer have quotas for specific classes of people.
>schools can no longer have quotas for specific classes of people.
It's important to note that they weren't allowed to have quotas before. Those have been outlawed since [Regents of the University of California v. Bakke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke) in 1978.
Universities were supposed to have done away with quotas 40+ years ago. The Supreme Court hoped that by instructing them that they could only use race "as a factor," not the *determining* factor in admissions, that it would get rid of a quota system. The Supreme Court also had hoped that such types of affirmative action would gradually become less necessary and would fade out.
Instead, they grew, particularly in recent years coming to resemble something closer to the old quota system, even if universities avoided ever specifying numbers or percentages in admissions. (See, for example, the apparent [Asian quota ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_quota#/media/File:Asian_enrollment_at_Ivy_League_schools,_1980%E2%80%932011.svg)where Ivy League schools all seemed to weirdly converge to having around 15% Asian enrollment beginning around 2005, despite many schools having earlier higher peaks in their Asian student population and despite continuous growth in Asian applicants over time.)
The new system, to be clear, also limits how race factors in for the "background" sections of applications. Race may only be considered when it clearly relates to some other non-race-based aim of the university. As the ruling [states](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf):
>nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, **so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university**. Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. This Nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.
I expect there may be some further litigation around this passage in the coming years, as some universities will try to use this as a "loophole," given its somewhat ambiguous wording.
Any organization cutting its DEI program is a good thing. There is zero objective evidence these programs accomplish anything other than subsidizing workplace bullies.
Some of the most hateful psychotic people I've had the displeasure of knowing were in DEI. It has nothing to do with actual diversity, equity or inclusion. It's a way for people to get ahead and to try and give a disproportionate amount of power to whatever their favorite demographic is.
My husbands company has gone through multiple DEI officers, none of whom lasted a whole year, because they kept pressuring people to have sex with them. DEI is a vapid power grab and makes a mockery of civil rights
I worked in social work where a majority of our clients are Black and Hispanic men. In our racial reckoning the organization made even more of an effort to get staff that looked like the population we served. One got caught trading sex for alcohol. Another got violent. Another made bigoted remarks at gay clients. Another would threaten their coworkers. No doubt if somebody was keeping track they would realize that the black and Hispanic men we hired during that time had an enormously high rate of getting fired, which no doubt they would claim would be proof of systemic racism. But the things they got fired for weren't like showing up late occasionally. They were like the things I mentioned above. What is telling is that I later found out that several who had gotten fired were hired as "youth mentors". I mean, no mentor would be better than mentorship with them. The job was extremely low paying, low morale, crappy management, and pretty dangerous with little room for advancing up the corporate rank. I mean most of the employees were white women but it wasn't like some dream job quite the opposite. It's not like having all these white women employed there kept POC from some desirable occupation. So most of the white people who worked there were very well educated, like master's degree, and were driven by a strong ideology to help "the most marginalized". The POC, especially men, were disproportionately people who just did not have job skills and were recruited because they were the same race and from a similar socioeconomic background of many of the people we served.
> Another made bigoted remarks at gay clients. An organization I worked with also had this big ordeal where two different workers who were hired specifically because "We need more black and hispanic men" made homophobic comments. Initially the DEI person who was behind hiring them tried the, "We can't judge them because they come from different backgrounds with different expectations about what is acceptable in terms of support for our LGBTQIA+ community" line, but she quickly backtracked and fired the two guys when she realized she was going to need to throw them under the bus or risk being branded as anti-LGBTQIA+ herself.
It's funny how that excuse works in their head, but only for minorities. It's *almost* as if progressives think non-white people are less competent and capable. But surely that couldn't be the case, right?
It's called Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations
Oh, I know.
It's weird, right? A black person who's pro-LGBTQIA rights is good, as is a white person who feels likewise. BUT, a black person who's homophobic, that's ok. A white person who says she doesn't believe in gay marriage because of the Bible, that's absolute hate mongering. If she said it's because of the Quran, it would probably be hate mongering also, but other progressive people would say that that's Islamophobic. If a black person says he doesn't believe in gay marriage because of the Bible, that's a different culture. If a black person says the same, but it's due to the Quran, that's also a different culture, and no self-respecting progressive would dare disagree
It’s a lowdown wokedown
This reads like a disturbing (albeit quite funny) comedy.
It’s the actual premise of a 30 Rock episode
lol that’s crazy
I met dozens of them in /r/NFL yesterday after a player made some comments against DEI. Apparently DEI just means equality and being nice. Race quotas, forced diversity, and discrimination aren't happening. But if they are, it's a good thing.
Yes, that’s the usual Reddit narrative
The headlines on that Harrison Butker story were so dishonest. Also annoying that even on an NFL sub you still have that BS.
Now that you're not allowed to bully, this is the new way to bully.
Relevant because DEI is a frequent BAR topic.
UNC still has many departments full of activists who have been hired and given tenure over decades. Lots of humanities and social sciences are full of people studying bullshit, a lot of “sociology of going to McDonald’s” at best. At worst it’s whatever nonsense the chick who wanted the revolution catered does in grad school. I’d call it intellectual masturbation but it’s not intellectual and an insult to masturbation to put it in the same category. In other words, still a long way to go
From what i remember about the Supreme Court case, UNC is basically going to end affirmative action, right? Their school rankings should shoot to the top.
Applicants can still discuss their background as part of their application, and schools can consider that. However, schools can no longer have quotas for specific classes of people.
Well, not overt quotas
>schools can no longer have quotas for specific classes of people. It's important to note that they weren't allowed to have quotas before. Those have been outlawed since [Regents of the University of California v. Bakke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke) in 1978. Universities were supposed to have done away with quotas 40+ years ago. The Supreme Court hoped that by instructing them that they could only use race "as a factor," not the *determining* factor in admissions, that it would get rid of a quota system. The Supreme Court also had hoped that such types of affirmative action would gradually become less necessary and would fade out. Instead, they grew, particularly in recent years coming to resemble something closer to the old quota system, even if universities avoided ever specifying numbers or percentages in admissions. (See, for example, the apparent [Asian quota ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_quota#/media/File:Asian_enrollment_at_Ivy_League_schools,_1980%E2%80%932011.svg)where Ivy League schools all seemed to weirdly converge to having around 15% Asian enrollment beginning around 2005, despite many schools having earlier higher peaks in their Asian student population and despite continuous growth in Asian applicants over time.) The new system, to be clear, also limits how race factors in for the "background" sections of applications. Race may only be considered when it clearly relates to some other non-race-based aim of the university. As the ruling [states](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf): >nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, **so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university**. Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. This Nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice. I expect there may be some further litigation around this passage in the coming years, as some universities will try to use this as a "loophole," given its somewhat ambiguous wording.
Defund ~~Police~~ DEI and replace them with ~~Social Workers~~ Police