What he showed is an outright ignorance or unwillingness to understand what DEI is. DEI was created to provide opportunities for underrepresented people in certain fields. These fields had the same requirements as before but now there were supports for the underrepresented to achieve something that may have been un-accessible to them. Lets take the pilot example that he famously used. In order to get a pilots license you need a set number of hours in training and flying to achieve this. DEI does not exempt those requirements. It may provide grants to an inner city youth or person to fly and pay the ridiculously high price of getting a pilots license. These same grants would also provide support for them to get the thousands of hours need in flight simulators, training and flying a aircraft to become a commercial pilot. THEY ARE STILL REQUIRED TO PASS ALL OF THE SAME TESTS AND REQUIREMENTS. They are just as qualified as any other pilot. They have all done the same training. DEI just made it possible for this person to access the training and schooling needed to become a pilot. Now, here is my problem with Charlie Kirk. If he was as educated as he wanted everyone to believe in these topics, then he would know this. So, either he is not educated and he is spouting dangerous rhetoric that casts doubt on minorities abilities. This rhetoric also winks at white supremacist's. I mean the only way this minority could get this high profile job is if they cheated or didn't have to work as hard as the white pilots. Plus they are taking jobs from more deserving white people. This also ignores the fact that their is a pilot shortage. . . . . . . . BUT, even worse, Charlie Kirk probably knows this and is doing this with full understanding of who he was pandering to and was willfully complicit in it. So he is either ignorant and building up white supremist ideology, or he was knowingly building up white supremist ideology. Both are terrible in my book, but one is much much worse. I eagerly await you ignoring this post.
Speak of the devil. Destiny goes to a college campus and.... https://arazu.io/t3_1nl8c6q/?timeframe=all&category=hot https://arazu.io/t3_1nkuwaa/?timeframe=all&category=hot
Why are you eager for me to ignore your post? I disagree with you. Let's take race out of it and make it gender-based. Like United CEO, Scott Kirby, says in the video, they are using race and gender-based quotas in admitting prospective pilots into their flight training program. Of course, women are underrepresented in the field. I imagine many more men want to be airline pilots than women. How many more male applicants do they receive compared to females? Let's say United receives 1,000 applications from men and 100 applicants are women. If you have a quota that says you must admit 50% women into the pilot training program, you are forced to take women who are in the 40th- 50th percentile (grades, test scores, qualifications) of female applicants (and the bottom half of all applicants) while only taking the top 10% of male applicants. This could potentially mean that a White woman is admitted to the program in place of a better qualified and more deserving Black man. I have no idea if pilots can graduate at the top of their class comparatively to Law school and Medical school graduates. IF that is the case, an airline could potentially be forced hire a female pilot at the bottom of her graduating class in place of a man graduating with honors at the top of the class; or a female pilot with 5 years experience and a few blemishes on her record, instead of a male pilot with 20 years experience and a spotless service record. What are your thoughts on race-based college admittance? Is it fair for a first generation Vietnamese son of a poor single mother to be be denied admittance to Ivy League schools in favor of a Black kid from a wealthy two-parent household just because he is Asian? It is a very slippery slope and unfair in my personal opinion. People have fought hard for equality and equal opportunity in this country and I believe that people should be rewarded, admitted, promoted due to merit and not race, gender, sexual preference, religion, etc.
This is completely incorrect. Getting certifications/training is a prerequisite to be qualified as a candidate for the position. The was no barrier to keep minorities from reaching this stage. It is utterly stupid to think DEI candidates were barred from an education opportunity w/out DEI initiatives. There have been all types of people as pilots for decades. Dumb dumb dumb argument. DEI promoted identity over meritocracy. When I am hiring, I want the best person for the job, not the most qualified UNDERREPRESENTED person for the job. dumb dumb dumb
Okay, it still stands if you change it from race to gender. Still applies. Their is a barrier to entry for women pilots. Providing opportunities for them isn't a bad thing especially if there is a shortage of pilots, like there currently is. Charlie Kirk questioned if a pilot was qualified due to DEI. I showed that in order to become a pilot you have to meet very specific criteria. All pilots have to meet these qualifications. Gender, faith, money, and race have nothing to do with it. Its a test based on your knowledge and skills. If you pass the test you are more than qualified to fly commercially. There is an actual shortage of pilots right now. Do they all need to be a certain type of person in your world? I don't think that you have to be a specific gender or race to meet these standards, so no I don't care if they have quotas as long as the requirements are the same and standards are unchanged. Then again, I am not afraid of competition, I feel it raises all boats. Why are you now talking about college admission? I don't know if you know this but there is a 5% admission rate to IVY league schools. That means no matter what their are qualified people who are not being admitted, regardless of race, gender, faith, or money. What i can say is that whoever is accepted is meeting the stringent qualifications of that IVY league school. Are you upset that there is not enough of a specific gender, race or religion accepted? Once again, very competitive and whoever is accepted meets extremely high standards. I get how it can look like a slippery slope, but if you are only looking at less than 25% of your applicants and ignoring the other 75 percent, that is not rewarding someone due to merit, its hamstringing them and us as a society. Its this idea that only a certain group of people are qualified that hamstrings us. Step away and realize that equal rights and opportunities for all does not mean less for you. It does mean more competition and better overall results.
You are making points that invalidate your argument. You say... There is a barrier to entry for women pilots. What is the barrier to entry for women pilots? There is an actual shortage of pilots right now. Do they all need to be a certain type of person in your world? I don't think that you have to be a specific gender or race to meet these standards, so no I don't care if they have quotas as long as the requirements are the same and standards are unchanged. Then again, I am not afraid of competition. Yes, they all need to be a certain type of person in my view- the best, most qualified and most deserving, regardless of race or gender. Do you not understand you are arguing against fair competition? Why are you now talking about college admission? I don't know if you know this but there is a 5% admission rate to IVY league schools. That means no matter what there are qualified people who are not being admitted, regardless of race, gender, faith, or money. Are you upset that there is not enough of a specific gender, race or religion accepted? So what if 5% of applicants are admitted? That says absolutely nothing about who is getting admitted. Within that 5%, if there are students with lower grades, test scores & qualifications admitted in favor of applicants with better grades, test scores & qualifications due solely to race, then it is an unfair practice. YOU ARE THE ONE UPSET THAT THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH OF A SPECIFIC GENDER OR RACE and are arguing for quotas and discriminatory practices to make sure there are. I am arguing for non-discriminatory merit-based admissions, hiring and promotions regardless of race, gender or religion. They could be all Black female pilots & Ivy league admissions for all I care, if they have the highest scores & qualifications. I get how it can look like a slippery slope, but if you are only looking at less than 25% of your applicants and ignoring the other 75 percent, that is not rewarding someone due to merit. This entirely contradicts your argument yet again. Quotas & race, gender-based hiring & admissions does exactly this. It is not looking at the entire applicant pool and admitting, hiring, promoting the best & most qualified. It is looking at less than 25% of your applicants and ignoring the other 75% due to race & gender- the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
You are assuming these people are not qualified because, in your world, there is no way they could be. That's dangerous thinking. Do you think getting a pilot's license is easy for any person in any situation? There are barriers that need to be overcome. That's what DEI does. You don't know the process and cost of a pilot's license, let alone a commercial pilot's license. This is easy to explain, but you won't like my reply. You are approaching this argument from the perspective that none of these groups can be as qualified or more qualified than the one you are supporting. Plain and simple, you are assuming they are not qualified. It has not even crossed your mind that the people pursuing these jobs and openings are equally qualified or more so. DEI forces the pool to expand, I am sorry but looking at only the 25% does not increase your pool, that's just math. So, to you, all of my arguments are nullifying because. . . . . those people could never be as or even more qualified. This may shock you, but DEI is not about filling quotas with any minority or disabled person with a heartbeat. They have to meet the requirements and qualifications. Based on your response, I have to assume that you look at those people and think, "There is no way they are qualified because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion." That, my friend, is the slippery slope of something not good. . . . Also, prove that they are accepting lower-quality applicants at these IVY league schools. Show me the stats and data to back this up. You made the claim; now back it up with primary sources. I need stats, not a YouTube video or a biased article that is pushing an agenda. Show me the test scores and GPA's from before DEI compared to today. There may be an odd case here or there, but I bet you I can match that 10 to 1 with legacy/donation kids that are not even qualified. You do realize that IVY league schools throw out applicants that don't meet their standards, right? I mean, unless Dad gave a lot of money or is a successful alumnus. Sidenote, I know someone from my rural state who, through DEI, was accepted to Harvard. They wanted more representation from rural communities. He met all of the requirements in spades, but due to where he lived and who he was, he was moved into the rural pool that increased his odds for acceptance. Dude is as white as snow. That sumbitch probably took some poor minorities spot with his DEI. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are not just for minorities. . . . just sayin.
He primarily debated college kids… as a 30 year old adult. He was fine as a debater but nothing special. What made him unique is that he was a conservative that would debate on liberal campuses and typically do so respectfully. Some of his statements about female “body counts” and telling women to “get behind their husbands” was ignorant but no one is going to agree on everything someone else says.
I laid out this entire debate for you in simple terms. There is something you seem to be misunderstanding. I suggest going back and reading my previous two posts again. You say... You are approaching this argument from the perspective that none of these groups can be as qualified or more qualified than the one you are supporting. Plain and simple, you are assuming they are not qualified. It has not even crossed your mind that the people pursuing these jobs and openings are equally qualified or more so. DEI forces the pool to expand, I am sorry but looking at only the 25% does not increase your pool, that's just math. So, to you, all of my arguments are nullifying because. . . . . those people could never be as or even more qualified. Based on your response, I have to assume that you look at those people and think, "There is no way they are qualified because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion." That, my friend, is the slippery slope of something not good. . . . I'm sorry, but you have it completely backwards! I am supporting the group that is more qualified and deserving REGARDLESS OF RACE OR GENDER! Everyone is not "equally qualified". In any group, some will have better grades, test scores, track record, service record, etc. YOU are decreasing the applicant pool to 25% by implementing quotas that say a certain % or # of admittees must be a certain race or gender. I gave you a clear example of how DEI and discriminatory quotas could potentially benefit a less qualified White female pilot at the expense of a Black male pilot. Here is some info regarding the college admission #'s you requested. Just google it if you want more sources, there are many. Studies from before the 2023 Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action indicated that Asian-American applicants needed significantly higher SAT scores to gain admission to Ivy League schools compared to Black applicants. For instance, one 2009 study by Princeton University showed that Asian-American applicants needed scores 450 points higher than Black applicants to have the same chance of acceptance. These disparities were attributed to race-based preferences in the admissions process, which favored Black students. Underpinning the Supreme Court’s landmark decision striking down affirmative action in college admissions was stunning data highlighting the vast racial disparities in qualified and admitted applicants to both Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. Both institutions had markedly lower acceptance rates for Asian and White applicants than Black and Hispanic candidates who fell into the same academic decile. At Harvard, an Asian candidate in the eighth highest academic decile had 5.1% chance of admittance, compared to 7.5% for White, 22.9% for Hispanic, and 44.5% for Black applicants, Harvard’s expert also testified that race gives the African-American and Hispanic applicants a ‘big increase in the probability of admission,.” An expert testified that test scores and GPAs “had widely different admission rates by race.” Whenever you provide an advantage to one group, you simultaneously apply a disadvantage to all of the other groups. Although affirmative action helps Black applicants, it comes at the cost of hurting Asian students. During the most recent medical school application cycle, White matriculants had an average GPA of 3.78 and MCAT of 512.7 and Asian matriculants had an average GPA of 3.79 and MCAT of 514.5. The average Asian matriculant had an MCAT nearly 2 points higher than the average Caucasian. In comparison, Black matriculants had an average GPA of 3.55 and MCAT of 505.9 and Hispanic matriculants averaged a 3.64 GPA and 506.6 MCAT. In several previous years, the disparities in GPA and MCAT scores have been even more pronounced. When we look at the data, it is evident that Asian applicants are being hurt the most by affirmative action policies. Compared to the average Black matriculant, the average Asian matriculant achieves a GPA that is nearly 0.25 points higher and an MCAT score that is nearly 8 points higher. For perspective, a 506 on the MCAT is a 65th percentile score and a 515 is a 90th percentile score. You conclude by stating... Dude is as white as snow. That sumbitch probably took some poor minorities spot with his DEI. There you go! A lesser deserving applicant with lower gpa, test scores & qualifications potentially took the spot of a, perhaps, more deserving person- a poor minority with better credentials. https://nypost.com/2023/06/29/supreme-court-affirmative-action-case-showed-astonishing-racial-gaps/ https://medschoolinsiders.com/pre-med/affirmative-action-and-med-school-admissions/
