As another poster remarked, the masks are coming off now. They won't bother to do the kind of lazy bad-faith arguing/trolling BS you're seeing in this thread for much longer. They just have to keep moving the Overton window steadily farther and farther right, and you'll have people ranting in public about the [n-words] in no time.
For a lot of people the actual goal is to just have green, by getting rid of the purple. Most of them don't admit it, though, and take great offense at the suggestion that such a possibility even exists.
That links to the full paper, not just to an abstract. From that fact, I infer you didn't read the paper either.
Indeed. We're seeing who makes excuses for discrimination and who doesn't.
He wasn't ascribing a bad motivation to you, just refuting your argument.
You seem to be having a great deal of trouble following who says what in this thread.
How? I'm genuinely interested how you'd stop discrimination.
Reminds me of this woman.
Not so. It is not racist to be aware of the well-documented advantages that white men have in American society. I have already provided two studies that substantiate this finding.
If it did not, you would not be fighting so hard to maintain the demonstrated advantages that white men have.
DEI does not promote discrimination.
If you had mountains of evidence, now would be a great time to provide some.
Oh, look, appeal to authority. They still misrepresent the grant process, which given your claim of having written scores can't be down to an honest mistake.
Dismissing John Herbert as an "activist" is an ad hominem. His politics are irrelevant; the only question is whether his fact-checking of the original paper's citations holds up.
I already did, as you would know if you had read the peer-reiviewed paper I linked to.
For the last time: The paper quotes and links to the Biden EOs that mandated those DEI requirements, and the paper quotes and links to the funding agencies' own DEI mandates that they put in place in response to those EOs. That is, the paper literally proves that those DEI requirements were in place during the Biden administration, no matter how many times you repeat "no they weren't," "no they weren"t," "no they weren't."
You don't treat people differently based on their race or sex. Really not that hard. Treat people as individuals.
Of course it does; otherwise, it wouldn't be obsessed with race.
And what do you do for the people who systematically and for generations have been treated differently because of their race or sex?
Why would you punish people who had nothing to do with that?
Answer the question.
Then show it. You and everybody else keeps dancing around that mythical mechanism.
No, I'm pointing out that DEI says that you are given special consideration if you are black, or part of any other grouping that the Progressives want to promote. DEI does not select based on merit, so any program that promotes people through DEI always will lead to the question of what merit the person from the same group has.
You are playing the race card.
You don't treat people differently. That's it. If you think disparate treatment is okay because some bad thing happened in the past, then you're in "Jews killed Jesus" territory.
Yes, that's how individuals should act. But suppose a company isn't doing that. Suppose an entire industry isn't doing that. It would be a problem, correct? So how would you like to see such things addressed?
No, you're wrong. DEI says that you do not deny opportunities for people based on race, skin colour, sexual orientation, gender identity, able-bodiedness, or any other arbitrary criteria. You can't be merit based unless you offer opportunities to a diverse range of people, you offer them equitably, and you include everybody in your pool if candidates. If you're not doing that, you're not merit-based, because there may be some people with plenty of merit who are outside your pool.
In other words, people whose circumstances mean that they have less opportunity because of things that have happened in the past do not get the opportunities that more fortunate people get.
You ask them, duh.
So there's no reason to care about a person's race or sex. We agree on something. Hurrah!
Do you think they're working?
No it isn't.
What are your main sources of info for understanding DEI?
Sure, when color is no longer a point of discrimination.
We've always agreed on something - that discrimination based on arbitrary characteristics is wrong. What we disagree on is what you should do when you discover systematic discrimination. I say that it should be addressed. You say it should be conserved because addressing it is just another form of discrimination.
Can you give us an example of systemic discrimination? What law or regulation are you referring to? I'll stand with you to have that law/regulation repealed.
Like I said before, ramps are not built in to older buildings, which means that people who are confined to wheelchairs have difficulty accessing them. Laws or regulations are passed to require ramps to be installed, thereby equitably including those who previously were excluded because of their disability. That's affirmative action.
I see you're back to arguing from what you believe is on the tin, rather than from the practices the term actually refers to. I thought you'd taken correction on this point over a year ago.
I agree that a certain part of the rightist community use the term "DEI" to describe practices that are absolutely not diverse, equitable or inclusive. They are using the term wrong, and they are explicitly using it wrong in order to perpetuate discriminatory, inequitable and exclusive policies.
You make it sound like there's hardly any discrimination in the US, that there's no especially notable problem. Am I reading you right?
Source? The Pew studied showed that full time working women are making less than full time working men. Apples to apples.
One study means nothing, regardless of subject or discipline. Science is based on repeatability and requires extensive confirmation.
Similar concept, different implementation, especially now that SCOTUS has struck down much of AA. AA is more explicit in its bias towards promoting protected groups (particularly on the basis of ethnicity), while DEI is couched in the conceit that it promotes *all* people equally (while claiming that whites already have all the advantages).
Obviously, your idea of preferential treatment is defective.
I didn't say there were.
See, this is the final insult. This is vigorously rubbing salt in the wound. I grew up in a single-parent household headed by my school teacher mom. We lived in poverty most of my childhood. I had a lot of access to books because my mom was a teacher and library books were free. I had more access to books than to food or clothes. Most or all of my clothes for the last decade of my childhood were donated to my family. Much of our food was, too. Some charity once gave my family Christmas presents, but we had to give them all back when we were evicted from our home. As an adult, I've done a little better, but I had to work hard to get anything, and I still was homeless a few times. I've managed to earn three associate degrees, but I've spent forty years trying to earn a bachelor's degree, because I keep running out of money or have to move because I can't support myself. I'm a disabled Navy veteran, which gives me a few benefits, but educational benefits were limited to $8200.
