Race and sex aren't the only reasons people are discriminated against.
There's the law, and then there's how the law is interpreted, enacted, and regulated. In the end, the law is just people. Imperfect, prone to bias, and human.
No. And wheelchair users come in all races and both sexes.
OK. So you can't read.
Agreed. The more the laws the greater the tyranny.
A little bit of affirmative action for the inclusion of disabled people is okay then. Good. I'm glad we got that sorted out.
And people are discriminated against for reasons other than race and sex.
Surely. And most of those reasons are just fine. This job requires a college degree in X; don't have that degree, don't apply. Then there's attractive privilege. I have to check myself often on that one.
There's a difference between you can't have this job because you don't have the required qualifications, and you can't have this job because your wheelchair can't get up the stairs even though you do have the required qualifications.
Let me restate this analogy so that a 13 year old can understand it, since apparently that's what we need to do now.
Which is honestly what DEI initiatives aim for, and which you are actively opposing. Huzzah.
Apparently one of us can't. Recall, you and the paper claim that this supposed mandate is in two Executive Orders. And in support of this, you provide something from the Department of Energy, and not a quote from the Executive Order?
Further evidence of reading comprehension problems? "DEI activities" are not DEI mandates.
Still waiting for the supposed mandate that you and the authors claim is in one of the EOs. As a reminder, you should be able to find this mandate in EO 13985 or EO 14091
The EOs mandated DEI throughout the entire Executive Branch, which includes the funding agencies. But who cares? Who mandated them was not the point. Their existence was. Now that you can no longer credibly deny that, you’re trying to latch on to an ancillary issue.
I'm still waiting on evidence that the EOs actually did mandate what you and the authors claim, as you and they have so far been unable to actually substantiate that.
I can’t help you with your reading problem, and the EOs were never the point. The mandatory DEI programs, which, contrary to your denials, have now been undeniably shown to exist, are the point. If you want to believe that the directors of every funding agency got the idea to mandate that DEI be incorporated into funding proposals right after those EOs were issued, but weren’t responding to those EOs, be my guest.
I heard the Cinnabon racist got a hundred thousand dollars on a go fund me type of fundraiser.
Then there was the playground Karen that abused little black children, calling them the N-word who proudly did the same.
I guess it pays to be a bigoted POS in public in Trump's America.
The paper you cited led with the claim that the EOs mandated DEI programs in grants. Yet neither you nor the authors can actually find that language in the EOs. Perhaps crowing about your peer reviewed study that gets the basics wrong right out of the gate isn't going as well for you as you'd like? Shall we look at some of the other errors and misrepresentations in the paper, or would you like to drop it?
