I did Nazi that coming. See the pun I did there? I'm light hearted like that. Let's chill and have a sincere dialogue. Anyways, a little bit of Nazi sprinkled in is okay. Like 1933 era Nazism with the Nazism before the camps where it was mainly the hate rhetoric and threatening mass deportations with random far right militia groups sprinkled throughout the country threatening marginalized groups is fine. Its the 1940s Nazism with the camps and invasions that is the problem. Got you. I understand you now.
legacy admissions is an entirely different subject and not relevant here. The way affirmative action has worked in an academic hiring context (since Bakke) is that if there are 100 potentially qualified "minority" candidates in a field (gender studies, physics, English lit) and only 20 apply, universities have to provide evidence to the federal government that they have studied how to increase that applicant ratio to attract and encourage more of those 100 qualified minorities to apply. That's it. Affirmative action has nothing to do with the actual hiring of the position. As you might suspect, universities spend enormous amounts of money conducting these affirmative action assessments, and the reporting back to the federal government is an enormous and time-consuming compliance burden. Our university has four full-time affirmative action compliance officers whose only job is to report back to the government what the university is doing to increase the minority applicant pool for each and every academic position (and many administrative positions) the institution advertises. In 90 or 120 days, that entire framework is potentially going bye-bye, and those compliance officers will either be out of a job or be reassigned.
99ers are smart people trying to explain your superior intellect is trying to explain to some savages living in the jungle how to setup WiFi
here's a gift article on DEI, let me quote just a couple of paragraphs and then relate to university examples I'm familiar with Trump’s D.E.I. Order Creates ‘Fear and Confusion’ Among Corporate Leaders The executive order signals that private businesses and organizations could be investigated over their diversity policies. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/23/...e_code=1.rU4.kLS_.Co84yuI1GcTT&smid=url-share excerpt: More than 200 diversity officers, some from Fortune 500 companies and some from nonprofits, gathered last summer at N.Y.U. School of Law and on video to talk about the future of their diversity, equity and inclusion, or D.E.I., programs, which had become a legal and social target. Anxiously, they wondered how to protect themselves. Did they need to rethink internship programs for underrepresented workers, or drop certain diversity language from their websites? {emphasis added} Those concerns ratcheted up sharply this week. In his first days in office, with a series of sweeping moves, President Trump took aim at diversity efforts. Mr. Trump ordered federal officials overseeing government D.E.I. efforts to be put on leave. His efforts did not stop with government employment. He revoked an executive order signed in 1965 that prohibited discriminatory hiring and employment practices for private government contractors. Perhaps most alarming for business leaders was the order’s focus on private corporations, whether they do business with the government or not. “We’re already seeing that this flurry of orders has created fear and confusion,” said David Glasgow, executive director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging at N.Y.U. Law. The executive order instructs the federal government to look at private sector D.E.I. initiatives: Each federal agency, it says, will identify “up to nine potential civil compliance investigations” that could include publicly traded corporations, nonprofits and large foundations, among others. At our university, and since Bakke, efforts to promote diversity for "underrepresented groups" have focused on racial/ethnic categories. Two examples: 1) a special tutoring program in our engineering college for "minorities." This program allocated FREE tutoring to "underrepresented minorities" (which was always expressed as racial/ethnic minority--which is why the Harvard admissions case is so significant), and all other students had to pay for their own tutoring. This kind of discrimination by RACE been illegal since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and yet well-intentioned administrators in the college ran the tutoring program anyway. This was illegal. 2) I believe also in the engineering college (lots of STEM emphasis where I worked): to promote and encourage admitted applicants to actually come to our university, the college sponsored all-expenses-paid weekend campus visits to members of "underrepresented minorities." Any admitted student who was NOT a member of a minority group had to pay for such campus visits out-of-pocket. This program was illegal as well, and yet the college ran the program anyway. In BOTH cases, nobody from the college ever questioned the discrimination by race, or tried to frame the "solution" in anything other than discriminatory racial terms. What lawyers eventually got through to the administrators in question was that the relevant factor here was not RACE but economic status. Sometimes these correlate, but not always. It makes no sense to offer free tutoring or a free weekend visit to a prospective black student, say, who was a graduate of Philips Exeter whose parents were both wildly successful brokers on Wall Street. In both cases, these programs would have been on firm legal ground if they had been structured as NEEDS-BASED programs--not race-based or minority-based programs. Part of the problem here is the legacy of Bakke: it was a decision that tried to give everyone something and settled nothing (another thread topic perhaps). That's where the language of "underrepresented groups" comes from, and those groups are whom college administrators (in the higher ed context) have tried to help with well-intended but wholly illegal programs. Recently these programs have been re-branded as "DEI" programs, but the discrimination by race has persisted, and this is what the executive order (for better or worse) is trying to address. Again, my wife (a university attorney with 35+ years of experience) believes the EO to be a painful but necessary course correction.
This is a typical democrat rug pull. Democrats promise the heavens and the earth and deliver BS. "We know DEI is bullshit. But make sure you put 'Diversity' in your title so we can use you as a martyr when the other side comes for you. " They promise them the moon, a safe secure job of doing nothing but getting in the way. Gen Z Boss and an unemployment line Gen Z Boss and an unemployment line
The deployment of this meme signals a red flag that you partake in too many incel subreddits. I got you bro. You are easy to read.
Since the 78 year-old convicted felon was elected in November, companies have backed away from DEI initiatives. Walmart, Amazon, Meta have all scaled back their policies. Companies like John Deere and Tractor Supply have eliminated roles and community outreach associated with its DEI programs. But not Costco, as Costco shareholders reject anti-DEI proposal pushed by activists, Microsoft, JPMorgan Chase and Apple have notably joined Costco in standing against the trend. as a regular Costco shopper, as well as a stockholder, i am quite please. fwiw, i also own an iPhone and bank at Chase; and will be buying their stocks soon
