Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

Brainster said:
Heh, just came here to mention that the surest sign DEI is a dead letter is that liberals are now referring to Pete Hegseth as a DEI hire.
Click to expand...
That could well be true. But it is a premise of the anti-DEI argument that well-qualified people are being overlooked in order to get in people who have the right skin tones or the right genitalia (or believe they have the wrong genitalia, etc...), but who have lower qualifications.

So, it makes sense to at least be able to point out the irony of this complaint coming from supporters of the hiring of absolute lunatics to serious organizations.

DEI or no DEI, there is no excuse for candidates like this....

Considering Hegseth, election denier Attorney General Pam Bondi, WWE exec Linda McMahon for secretary of education, and vaccine denier, brain-worm victim Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for Health and Human Services, one must conclude Republicans are not sending us their best. (Or, the more alarming alternative…they are sending their best.)
Click to expand...
What is the argument that any of these people really should be in charge of important government bodies?
 
bruto said:
One might have thought that actual diversity, equity and inclusion should be default values, but trust conservatism to tell us they are wrong and radical.
Click to expand...
Let's talk about diversity, for example. Suppose you look around your office and see that you have a bunch of highly intelligent and motivated people. Is this an indication you should be hiring stupid and lazy individuals to diversify?
 
Dial down the bickering and personalisation, please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
arthwollipot said:
Who's saying that it is?
Click to expand...
That's the question. The point is to try map the contours of your principles on this topic. Your answer seems to suggest you believe that competence trumps diversity, equity, and inclusion in hiring and contracting. It also seems to suggest that you're reluctant to say so plainly. Refusal to clearly answer clarifying questions tends to reinforce the perception that DEI is a bad faith proposition.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
That's the question. The point is to try map the contours of your principles on this topic. Your answer seems to suggest you believe that competence trumps diversity, equity, and inclusion in hiring and contracting. It also seems to suggest that you're reluctant to say so plainly. Refusal to clearly answer clarifying questions tends to reinforce the perception that DEI is a bad faith proposition.
Click to expand...
I have been very clear, and you are deliberately misrepresenting me.

I have not said that competence trumps jack. I have said that arbitrary characteristics like skin colour, gender identity or sexual orientation should not be enough to exclude competent individuals from consideration.
 
arthwollipot said:
I have been very clear, and you are deliberately misrepresenting me.

I have not said that competence trumps jack. I have said that arbitrary characteristics like skin colour, gender identity or sexual orientation should not be enough to exclude competent individuals from consideration.
Click to expand...
Who's saying they are?

It may surprise you to learn that here in America, it's been illegal for many years already, to exclude someone from employment consideration because of those things.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Who's saying they are?

It may surprise you to learn that here in America, it's been illegal for many years already, to exclude someone from employment consideration because of those things.
Click to expand...
It may surprise you to learn that there in America, it still happens a lot more than it should.
 
arthwollipot said:
It may surprise you to learn that there in America, it still happens a lot more than it should.
Click to expand...
Evidence needed, assuming you mean that anyone other than white males are still discriminated against in this country.

I've already provided you with ample evidence that women and minorities are currenty given preferential treatment to the detriment of white males. Of course, the beginning of the end of that is just a few hours away.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
It may surprise you to learn that here in America, it's been illegal for many years already, to exclude someone from employment consideration because of those things.
Click to expand...
Not for all of them in all places in the US. Skin color yes, but you can still discriminate in hiring based on sexual orientation -- not every state has laws against that. Some cities have them where their state doesn't. But there's no federal law against it. As for "gender identity" discrimination, discriminating based on sex is illegal but that doesn't include everything under the banner of "gender identity": you can still discriminate in hiring against trans people, depending on your location.


eta: for example, my state (Missouri) "prohibits discrimination in housing, employment, and places of public accommodations based on race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, disability, age (in employment only), and familial status (in housing only)." Which means it's down to the city/county ordinances whether my employer can fire me for being gay, or my landlord can evict me for it. Sure it would be bad PR...but they could do it.

Too many people thought "oh, the gays are on TV, everything is fine now" back in the 90s.
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
Evidence needed, assuming you mean that anyone other than white males are still discriminated against in this country.

I've already provided you with ample evidence that women and minorities are currenty given preferential treatment to the detriment of white males. Of course, the beginning of the end of that is just a few hours away.
Click to expand...
You need evidence that people other than white males are discriminated against???

I'm surprised you're willing to admit that in public.
 
arthwollipot said:
You need evidence that people other than white males are discriminated against???

I'm surprised you're willing to admit that in public.
Click to expand...
You can certainly find examples of discrimnation for pretty much any group. I think this issue in this thread is that DEI excuses some racial or sex discrmination as good.
 
It’s official. DEI has been banned in the federal government. Trump has rescinded (on Day One, as promised) Biden’s two executive orders (EO13985 and 14095) that mandated DEI throughout the federal government. Trump further ordered that

The heads of each agency shall take immediate steps to end Federal implementation of unlawful and radical DEI ideology.​

All US science funding agencies (NSF, NIH, NASA, etc.) were subject to the aforementioned Biden executive orders, which meant that, as a requirement for funding, applicants had to demonstrate that their research would advance DEI ideology. The funding agencies themselves were required to advance DEI, which meant that they gave preference in funding to minority applicants.

With the stroke of a pen, all this is over. The funding of fundamental research that has no connection to DEI will no longer be threatened, and research proposals will be funded on the basis of their scientific merit without regard to the applicant’s skin color.
 
Last edited:
Yay, it's about time that the women, darkies, non-straight and poor are removed from the US government and army again. How dare they think they could contribute to aiding society or the army like normal white men.
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
Yay, it's about time that the women, darkies, non-straight and poor are removed from the US government and army again. How dare they think they could contribute to aiding society or the army like normal white men.
Click to expand...
Ya see? DEI is about the good racism against While people. Treating people equally and according to merit is bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom