Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

[Hercules56]

Government regulators rarely need a criminal or civil judgement, to make a finding of noncompliance and impose sanctions on their own authority.

Conversely, if a regulated entity believes the regulator is overstepping its authority, they can always seek a judicial injunction or other such remedy.

The withdrawal of grant funds looks extremely improper, politically motivated and will likely be struck by a court.

 

[johnny karate]

Government regulators rarely need a criminal or civil judgement, to make a finding of noncompliance and impose sanctions on their own authority.

Conversely, if a regulated entity believes the regulator is overstepping its authority, they can always seek a judicial injunction or other such remedy.

What "government regulators" conducted the investigation you're referencing and where can I access the details and results of this investigation?

 

[Aridas]

Stop maliciously mischaracterizing things. It's not convincing, and it really just makes you come across as childish.

Hmm...

Apparently people googling racial slurs causes cancer, heart disease, and stroke?

 

[jt512]

I was under the impression that whatever criteria were used for the grants were met when the grants were made, so unless the institution has changed to violate those criteria, the grants should stand. Retroactive changing of the criteria should not affect them. As far as we've seen, the threat to defund colleges has been based on reinterpretation of ideas, often pretty vague, not on the colleges' conduct. The allegation seems to be that the government violated what Trump now believes the principles should have been, not that the colleges violated the principles that were applied by the government at the time.

You are correct that the criteria for the grants was met. The problem is that the criteria themselves were illegal under federal civil rights laws. Some grants were restricted to minorities, which is flagrantly illegal; other grants explicitly favored minorities, or had DEI components that did—perhaps less flagrant, but illegal nonetheless. As Efimov et al. (2024) meticulously documented, the Biden administration via executive orders (see links in Efimov to EO 13985, EO 14091) required all federal grants to explicitly further DEI. This put grant applicants in a difficult situation, namely, that in order to get funding they had to promise to violate federal civil rights law. So, these grants, which are essentially contracts, were illegal in whole or in part. Illegal contracts are legally void and unenforcible. So what do you do with an illegal contract? Uphold the law by canceling it or continue to violate the law by honoring it?

Which is to say that I agree with Johnny Karate and Hercules56 on this one.

Unfortunately, Johnny and Herc don't know what they are talking about.

 

[johnny karate]

You are correct that the criteria for the grants was met. The problem is that the criteria themselves were illegal under federal civil rights laws. Some grants were restricted to minorities, which is flagrantly illegal; other grants explicitly favored minorities, or had DEI components that did—perhaps less flagrant, but illegal nonetheless. As Efimov et al. (2024) meticulously documented, the Biden administration via executive orders (see links in Efimov to EO 13985, EO 14091) required all federal grants to explicitly further DEI. This put grant applicants in a difficult situation, namely, that in order to get funding they had to promise to violate federal civil rights law. So, these grants, which are essentially contracts, were illegal in whole or in part. Illegal contracts are legally void and unenforcible. So what do you do with an illegal contract? Uphold the law by canceling it or continue to violate the law by honoring it?

Unfortunately, Johnny and Herc don't know what they are talking about.

Definitely looking to be educated. What investigation did the Trump administration conduct to determine the violations you're referencing and where can I find the details and results of this investigation?

 

[Hercules56]

You are correct that the criteria for the grants was met. The problem is that the criteria themselves were illegal under federal civil rights laws. Some grants were restricted to minorities, which is flagrantly illegal; other grants explicitly favored minorities, or had DEI components that did—perhaps less flagrant, but illegal nonetheless....

Prove it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Hmm...

Don't be silly. The study used googling of racial slurs as a proxy for racism, and correlated it with excess morbidity. Then it proceeded to "conclude" that black people die more in places where people google racist terms more - with the implication that black people were endangered by racist activity in those areas.

But it also explicity said:

After they controlled for other factors, like education and wealth, the association was not as strong, but it still remained, especially with deaths caused by cancer, heart disease, and stroke.

So at the end of the day, the only actual observation that can be drawn is that in areas where people google racist slurs somewhat more frequently, black people have higher mortality associated with cancer, heart disease, and stroke.

It's an absurd article, with a nonsense result, pushing an unsupported narrative. My comment humorously highlighted that the article was just plain dumb.

 

[theprestige]

The withdrawal of grant funds looks extremely improper, politically motivated and will likely be struck by a court.

The usual suspects would say the same exact thing if the White House directed the DOJ to investigate and bring charges.

Not to mention that the DOJ probably doesn't have standing to interfere with or preempt a regulatory proceeding on their own initiative.

 

[theprestige]

Don't be silly. The study used googling of racial slurs as a proxy for racism, and correlated it with excess morbidity. Then it proceeded to "conclude" that black people die more in places where people google racist terms more - with the implication that black people were endangered by racist activity in those areas.

But it also explicity said:


So at the end of the day, the only actual observation that can be drawn is that in areas where people google racist slurs somewhat more frequently, black people have higher mortality associated with cancer, heart disease, and stroke.

It's an absurd article, with a nonsense result, pushing an unsupported narrative. My comment humorously highlighted that the article was just plain dumb.

You don't get it. Racist doctors like to stay current on racist language, and also like to withhold lifesaving care from black patients with cancer, heart disease, and stroke. /s

The real scandal is that nobody has ever noticed this racial disparity in healthcare services in these locales, and that Pew had to settle for a proxy of a proxy of a survey, to uncover the merest clues. /s

 

[Hercules56]

The usual suspects would say the same exact thing if the White House directed the DOJ to investigate and bring charges.

Not to mention that the DOJ probably doesn't have standing to interfere with or preempt a regulatory proceeding on their own initiative.

I'd LOVE to see evidence that the grants that have been pulled from Harvard involve DEI.

Something tells me there is no such evidence, and the grants that were pulled were never accused or suspected of being involved in racist policies.

Trump is simply punishing Harvard.

 

[theprestige]

I'd LOVE to see evidence that the grants that have been pulled from Harvard involve DEI.

It was never the claim that the grant-funded programs involved DEI. The claim has always been that Harvard has racist policies that make the university ineligible to receive federal funding (whether research grants or otherwise).

I'm sure if you thought a university had crypto-nazi policies, you'd be screaming that their grant funding should be cut off immediately.

Something tells me there is no such evidence, and the grants that were pulled were never accused or suspected of being involved in racist policies.

Well it's not something anymore, it's someone: Me. I'm telling you.

Trump is simply punishing Harvard.

Harvard deserves this "punishment". Don't have racist policies, don't lose federal funding. It's pretty simple. It's a consequence you probably endorse in every case except this one (which would make this special pleading, a fallacy on your part).

 

[johnny karate]

The usual suspects would say the same exact thing if the White House directed the DOJ to investigate and bring charges.

Not to mention that the DOJ probably doesn't have standing to interfere with or preempt a regulatory proceeding on their own initiative.

Who within the Trump administration is conducting this "regulatory proceeding" and where can I access the details of this "proceeding"?

 

[johnny karate]

It was never the claim that the grant-funded programs involved DEI. The claim has always been that Harvard has racist policies that make the university ineligible to receive federal funding (whether research grants or otherwise).

I'm sure if you thought a university had crypto-nazi policies, you'd be screaming that their grant funding should be cut off immediately.

Well it's not something anymore, it's someone: Me. I'm telling you.

Harvard deserves this "punishment". Don't have racist policies, don't lose federal funding. It's pretty simple. It's a consequence you probably endorse in every case except this one (which would make this special pleading, a fallacy on your part).

What investigation did the Trump administration conduct to determine that Harvard has "racist policies" and where can I access the details and results of this investigation?

 

[Hercules56]

It was never the claim that the grant-funded programs involved DEI. The claim has always been that Harvard has racist policies that make the university ineligible to receive federal funding (whether research grants or otherwise).

I'm sure if you thought a university had crypto-nazi policies, you'd be screaming that their grant funding should be cut off immediately.

Well it's not something anymore, it's someone: Me. I'm telling you.

Harvard deserves this "punishment". Don't have racist policies, don't lose federal funding. It's pretty simple. It's a consequence you probably endorse in every case except this one (which would make this special pleading, a fallacy on your part).

What racist policies does Harvard currently have?

 

[Emily's Cat]

You don't get it. Racist doctors like to stay current on racist language, and also like to withhold lifesaving care from black patients with cancer, heart disease, and stroke. /s

The real scandal is that nobody has ever noticed this racial disparity in healthcare services in these locales, and that Pew had to settle for a proxy of a proxy of a survey, to uncover the merest clues. /s

It's kind of strange, because there are absolutely disparate health care outcome on the basis of race. And not just outcomes, but documented differences in treatment modalities on the basis of both race and sex. Both black people and females have their pain-related complaints discounted by doctors - regardless of the race or sex of the doctor. Treatments tend to have longer delays for both, and there's a higher tendency to need more testing before treatment is allowed. It's been a known issue in medicine for decades, and it was one of the problems a few years ago with some medical support AI tool that was released, and found to be providing racially biased treatment protocols - it was trained on what doctors actually did... and yeah, they had racially different treatments.

 

[johnny karate]

It's kind of strange, because there are absolutely disparate health care outcome on the basis of race. And not just outcomes, but documented differences in treatment modalities on the basis of both race and sex. Both black people and females have their pain-related complaints discounted by doctors - regardless of the race or sex of the doctor. Treatments tend to have longer delays for both, and there's a higher tendency to need more testing before treatment is allowed. It's been a known issue in medicine for decades, and it was one of the problems a few years ago with some medical support AI tool that was released, and found to be providing racially biased treatment protocols - it was trained on what doctors actually did... and yeah, they had racially different treatments.

I think in pointing this out you just did a DEI and now we live in an Orwellian dystopia.

 

[Hercules56]

There is no evidence that all of the medical grants that have been cut from Harvard and other colleges involved racist policies.

 

[Aridas]

Don't be silly. The study used googling of racial slurs as a proxy for racism, and correlated it with excess morbidity. Then it proceeded to "conclude" that black people die more in places where people google racist terms more - with the implication that black people were endangered by racist activity in those areas.

But it also explicity said:


So at the end of the day, the only actual observation that can be drawn is that in areas where people google racist slurs somewhat more frequently, black people have higher mortality associated with cancer, heart disease, and stroke.

It's an absurd article, with a nonsense result, pushing an unsupported narrative. My comment humorously highlighted that the article was just plain dumb.

Ya know, to that, I'm just going to say -

Stop maliciously mischaracterizing things. It's not convincing, and it really just makes you come across as childish.

Because that is exactly what you did with what had been quoted and how you came across. Your assessment this time is indeed much closer than that first bit of nonsense, but frankly, you've shown well enough that you're not much interested in reasonable discussion here, as could honestly be figured out from what you posted that led to it, so I see little point in wasting much further effort on such here.

 

[theprestige]

What racist policies does Harvard currently have?

Racial preferences in admissions and hiring, which are expressly prohibited by law.

 

[johnny karate]

Racial preferences in admissions and hiring, which are expressly prohibited by law.

What investigation did the Trump administration do to make this determination and where can I access the details and results of this investigation?