Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

[Ziggurat]

...you do realize it's not the universities themselves getting US funding, it's research projects being run in them?

Tell me you don't understand how research grants work without telling me you don't understand how research grants work.

 

[Susheel]

Well I worked for a USAID project that involved the development of Transgenic crops that funded research, development and field testing across multiple agricultural universities in India, Bangladesh, the Philippines, and Uganda. It would have been a very useful product for Indian farmers if anti-transgenic scaremongers hadn't scuttled its final approval and introduction to the market.

 

[arthwollipot]

If they consider our funds "interference," then, sure, we can happily oblige them by withdrawing our support. So far, only your country has complained, as far as I know.

We should pull funding from anywhere our involvement isn't welcome. And apparently it's not welcome in Australia.

It's clear that neither of you read even the first paragraph of the article. Here, I'll spell it out for you:

The Trump administration has been accused of “blatant foreign interference” in Australia’s universities after researchers who receive US funding were asked to confirm they aligned with US government interests, including only recognising two genders.

Ibid.

It's the Trump administration's blatant interference that is not welcome. Believe me, we want your funding. Everybody wants your funding. What we don't want is the Trump administration making funding conditional on complying with its utterly moronic positions.

You may be able to make it illegal to recognise more than two genders in your country, but to make funding for other countries conditional on that is the same thing as forcing people to comply with a dress code because your religion demands it. You get to decide what rules your country follows. You do not get to dictate what rules my country follows.

Now that your blatant (deliberate?) misunderstanding of the situation has been corrected, have you anything more to say?

 

[jt512]

It's clear that neither of you read even the first paragraph of the article. Here, I'll spell it out for you:

Ibid.

It's the Trump administration's blatant interference that is not welcome. Believe me, we want your funding. Everybody wants your funding. What we don't want is the Trump administration making funding conditional on complying with its utterly moronic positions.

Too bad. You want our money. You gotta do what we ask.

You may be able to make it illegal to recognise more than two genders in your country, but to make funding for other countries conditional on that is the same thing as forcing people to comply with a dress code because your religion demands it. You get to decide what rules your country follows. You do not get to dictate what rules my country follows.

Actually, we have the right to condition our funding of foreign countries on anything we want to. It's our money. If the foreign country doesn't want to comply, it is free not to. It just don't get our money.

Now that your blatant (deliberate?) misunderstanding of the situation has been corrected, have you anything more to say?

Nobody, except possibly you, has misunderstood the article. You might try reading past the first sentence.

Actually, the article itself is useless, but the questionnaire that is the subject of the article is attached to it. There is no point in reading anything other than the questionnaire itself.

 

[Mojo]

You know, these claims of yours are getting less and less believable. I'm pretty sure you know no such people.

You wouldn't know them. They go to another school.*



*Obviously.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's clear that neither of you read even the first paragraph of the article. Here, I'll spell it out for you:

Ibid.

It's the Trump administration's blatant interference that is not welcome.

Oh, I know. You want our money, but want it without strings. Why should we give it to you? You aren't entitled to it

Believe me, we want your funding.

Of course you do. But that is selfish.

Everybody wants your funding. What we don't want is the Trump administration making funding conditional on complying with its utterly moronic positions.

Then you don't want it enough to get it. So don't get it. It's an easy choice

You get to decide what rules your country follows. You do not get to dictate what rules my country follows.

I agree.

But we do get to decide where our money goes. You don't want our money enough to follow our conditions. That's your choice, freely made. I won't try to change your mind.

Now that your blatant (deliberate?) misunderstanding of the situation has been corrected, have you anything more to say?

I have always fully understood. It is you who have not. Again, you seem to think you are entitled to that money. You are not.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Please don't ignore the other part of my post.

How many other overseas academic projects does the US fund? Should the US pull funding from all of them?

Why do you think it matters whether the US funds other projects in other countries? The US should pull funding from any and all of them that don't align with US interests, as well as from any that don't comply with US requirements for funding.

How many research projects in other countries does Australia fund? Does AU have any restrictions or requirements of the type of projects or compliance with AU interests?

 

[Emily's Cat]

You know, these claims of yours are getting less and less believable. I'm pretty sure you know no such people.

Just because you can't imagine it to be true doesn't mean it's not true. You have a rather biased filter for what information you provisionally accept as plausible and what you reject without even bothering to consider or look into it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's clear that neither of you read even the first paragraph of the article. Here, I'll spell it out for you:

Ibid.

It's the Trump administration's blatant interference that is not welcome. Believe me, we want your funding. Everybody wants your funding. What we don't want is the Trump administration making funding conditional on complying with its utterly moronic positions.

You may be able to make it illegal to recognise more than two genders in your country, but to make funding for other countries conditional on that is the same thing as forcing people to comply with a dress code because your religion demands it. You get to decide what rules your country follows. You do not get to dictate what rules my country follows.

Now that your blatant (deliberate?) misunderstanding of the situation has been corrected, have you anything more to say?

1) No, we don't get to dictate what rules your country follows. But it's perfectly within the scope of the US to make funding of OUR TAXPAYER'S MONEY contingent on whatever the ◊◊◊◊ we want.

2) Which brings me to a larger issue... There are so many topics in which the US gets held to a very special different standard than the rest of the world, and in which foreigners - like yourself - feel like you should have some say in how MY country is run. The arrogance is starting to get out of hand. For instance... How many foreigners feel free to insist that the US should be required to continue honoring birthright citizenship... when their countries absolutely do not do so? How many feel free to voice their view that the US should be required to take in pretty much any person who shows up at our border and wants to move here, even though their own countries don't do that and frequently have more stringent immigration laws than the US? How many of you criticize the US for racism and bigotry based on sensationalized media portrayals without bothering to recognize that your own countries are just as bigoted? How many of you feel it's somehow appropriate to denigrate the US for how much we spend on our military, deride US military intervention, but simultaneously demand that we show up and spend our resources and our money and our blood to protect other countries? How many of you Canadians are busy declaring Trump a fascist dictator who needs to be blocked and resisted and removed from office while ignoring the fact that you just had your parliament prorogued and your PM replaced by appointment without any say from your citizens at all?

Why the hell do you guys think it's even remotely reasonable to treat Us citizens like we're your countries' personal piggy bank, where you can take and take and we're somehow not allowed to say no or to attach any strings to our money?

 

[a_unique_person]

The DEI blowback hatred is spreading.

In a podcast, Australian footballer Josh Cavallo says he still faces multiple death threats every day since coming out.

He said being an openly gay player in a world of football "is a very toxic place".

The Adelaide United defender says he felt overwhelmed initially but he is proud to be his "authentic self" while playing top-tier football.

A-League player reveals daily death threats since coming out as gay

Adelaide United defender Josh Cavallo, the first openly gay professional footballer, says he still receives daily death threats since coming out more than three years ago.

www.abc.net.au

It's not really about DEI or trans. It's about not tolerating all things not straight Christian.

 

[arthwollipot]

Okay, here's a thought experiment. Let's not even talk about race or gender.

You have a position opening up at your company. There are two candidates, both equally qualified. One of them is blind. Do you agree that both candidates should get exactly the same treatment and consideration?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Okay, here's a thought experiment. Let's not even talk about race or gender.

You have a position opening up at your company. There are two candidates, both equally qualified. One of them is blind. Do you agree that both candidates should get exactly the same treatment and consideration?

What's the job? If it involves color-matching paint samples I think I'm going to discriminate.

 

[Manger Douse]

Okay, here's a thought experiment. Let's not even talk about race or gender.

You have a position opening up at your company. There are two candidates, both equally qualified. One of them is blind. Do you agree that both candidates should get exactly the same treatment and consideration?

That would depend on the job surely? I work on ropes at height

 

[theprestige]

Okay, here's a thought experiment. Let's not even talk about race or gender.

You have a position opening up at your company. There are two candidates, both equally qualified. One of them is blind. Do you agree that both candidates should get exactly the same treatment and consideration?

If I'm looking at CVs and qualifications, how do I even know one candidate is blind? Are they asking for reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)? Because if they can do the job with reasonable accommodations, I don't care how many eyes they have or how well those eyes function.

 

[arthwollipot]

If I'm looking at CVs and qualifications, how do I even know one candidate is blind? Are they asking for reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)? Because if they can do the job with reasonable accommodations, I don't care how many eyes they have or how well those eyes function.

If you're giving someone "reasonable accommodations", is that treating them the same as other candidates who do not require those accommodations? What if these "reasonable accommodations" costs your company more? What if it's a lot more? What if not only is it a lot more, but the disabled candidate is more qualified to the position?

Is the additional cost of these "reasonable accommodations" adequate reason to hire the non-disabled person over the disabled person? If not, you have DEI to thank for that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Okay, here's a thought experiment. Let's not even talk about race or gender.

You have a position opening up at your company. There are two candidates, both equally qualified. One of them is blind. Do you agree that both candidates should get exactly the same treatment and consideration?

Assuming that sight is not a necessity for the job, yes they should get the same consideration and treatment.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If you're giving someone "reasonable accommodations", is that treating them the same as other candidates who do not require those accommodations? What if these "reasonable accommodations" costs your company more? What if it's a lot more? What if not only is it a lot more, but the disabled candidate is more qualified to the position?

If the cost is a lot more, it's not a reasonable accommodation. At that point, if the disabled candidate is significantly more qualified, then the benefit of having a more qualified and skilled employee might well outweigh the excessive cost. But there's a reason it's called a reasonable accommodation.

Is the additional cost of these "reasonable accommodations" adequate reason to hire the non-disabled person over the disabled person? If not, you have DEI to thank for that.

In the real world, it actually does depend on how much the cost of those accommodations would be - that's what determines whether or not it's a reasonable accommodation in the first place.

 

[Susheel]

The Pentagon purges more or less confirm that the government's current DEI policy is racially motivated.

 

[Andy_Ross]

They removed the web page for Ira Hayes, one of the Marines who raised the flag on Iwo Jima.

 

[Andy_Ross]

VA to phase out treatment for gender dysphoria

President Trump’s Defending Women EO states, “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.” VA is adjusting its policies to fully comply with the EO.

https://news.va.gov/press-room/va-to-phase-out-treatment-for-gender-dysphoria/