• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

arthwollipot said:
I cannot believe that someone of your apparent intelligence can possibly believe that. Do Segregation, Jim Crow, ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ slavery mean anything to you?
Click to expand...
Slavery in the US ended in 1865; Jim Crow and segregation, in 1965. Try and keep up.
 
High entrance fees
jt512 said:
Slavery in the US ended in 1865; Jim Crow and segregation, in 1965. Try and keep up.
Click to expand...
But the current administration is setting up the conditions to put blacks back in their proper place by removing the obstacles for racism in studies and work life, allowing for segregation, rewriting history to make slavery look good, and honouring the people who supported slavery.
 
jt512 said:
Slavery in the US ended in 1865; Jim Crow and segregation, in 1965. Try and keep up.
Click to expand...
And the repercussions of both of those things persist to those days - not least because even if Jim Crow de-jure stopped in 1965, de-facto elements are still in place.
 
jt512 said:
No one is doing that. Stop lying. No one is opposed to providing opportunities to anyone.
Click to expand...
Trump is. Trump is opposed to providing opportunities to minority musicians to play in the Marine Band - opportunities that they have not had before. And you support Trump because you agree with him that these minorities should not be given those opportunities, because Trump says DEI is bad.
jt512 said:
As I have clearly and repeatedly stated, the opposition is to providing that opportunity exclusively to kids of certain races. That is literally discrimination and exclusion.
Click to expand...
Not when you are giving them opportunities that they have never had before! White kids get these opportunities. Minorities don't. That's why minorities make up less than 21% of orchestral musicians in America. That is discrimination. That is exclusion. That is what DEI, and organisations like Equity Arc, are trying to combat. But Trump says DEI is bad, so shut 'em down, boys.
jt512 said:
No. You are "flipping the narrative," pretending that the words "inclusion," "exclusion," and "discrimination" have exactly their opposite meanings, as if you're George Orwell.
Click to expand...
:i: :oldroll:

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
 
Incidentally, to return to an earlier subject, I have tried to find a list of some of the programmes at Australian universities that America has threatened to cut funding for because of "DEI" but nobody appears at this time to have actually published a list of specific jointly funded programmes. The only thing I can find is that they are mainly in biomedical and clinical sciences. America has long been a major collaborator in those fields, with 25% of publications having American collaboration, and American funding makes up about 30% of the total. These programmes are developing new vaccines and medical products and increasing health security for us all.

So Trump's injunction against DEI is directly impacting our future health and welfare and I for one don't like it.

Do you think that research on sickle-cell disease should single out people of African descent for special attention? Or should research be conducted equally on all people regardless of the colour of their skin?
 
Ooh, here's a thing. Last week Trump said some very weird things about fertilisation when he made a speech recognising Women's History Month. Is Women's History Month not discriminatory? Should he have made that speech? (no) Should Women's History Month, and for that matter Black History Month, be abolished in favour of, I dunno, History Month? Would that not be more equitable?

Were you in a fraternity in college? Are fraternities and sororities not discriminatory? I don't know what you'd call an -ity without the discriminatory language, but I'm sure you could come up with something that doesn't exclude half of the population.

Oh and here's a thing. Bathrooms. Bathrooms are discriminatory. How about you replace them all with non-discriminatory bathrooms? That'll solve several issues at the same time.

Or maybe you think that a bit of discrimination can sometimes be okay. That's fine - so do I.
 
jt512 said:
No one is doing that. Stop lying. No one is opposed to providing opportunities to anyone. As I have clearly and repeatedly stated, the opposition is to providing that opportunity exclusively to kids of certain races. That is literally discrimination and exclusion.

No. You are "flipping the narrative," pretending that the words "inclusion," "exclusion," and "discrimination" have exactly their opposite meanings, as if you're George Orwell.
Click to expand...
It is perhaps worth making some things a bit more clear here for the sake of the playing field.

Does the program force an outcome or simply seek to level the playing field of available opportunities overall? There are many ways to make it so that officially nondiscriminatory programs primarily end up giving opportunities to some preferred group, especially when, like the US, the groups often have significant differences in wealth, access, and where they're likelier to reside. Having a limited portion of programs and funding specifically intended to compensate for overall differences in actual provided opportunity is not normally considered discriminatory, even if, in isolation, they can be viewed as discriminatory.

Thus, the discussion cannot solely be one about the program in isolation if you want to have any hope of being convincing here.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
It is perhaps worth making some things a bit more clear here for the sake of the playing field.

Does the program force an outcome or simply seek to level the playing field of available opportunities overall? There are many ways to make it so that officially nondiscriminatory programs primarily end up giving opportunities to some preferred group, especially when, like the US, the groups often have significant differences in wealth, access, and where they're likelier to reside. Having a limited portion of programs and funding specifically intended to compensate for overall differences in actual provided opportunity is not normally considered discriminatory, even if, in isolation, they can be viewed as discriminatory.

Thus, the discussion cannot solely be one about the program in isolation if you want to have any hope of being convincing here.
Click to expand...

DEI is about widening the pool of applicants, not hiring unqualified people because of the color of their skin as the Trump-voting clowns in this thread are asserting.

Which is a particularly ironic claim coming from a Trump voter considering that we are watching the unqualified white guys they elected tear down the country in the absolute dumbest way possible.
 
johnny karate said:
DEI is about widening the pool of applicants, not hiring unqualified people because of the color of their skin as the Trump-voting clowns in this thread are asserting.
Click to expand...

Even the thing being complained about here is fundamentally about lifting people up, not dragging anything down.

johnny karate said:
Which is a particularly ironic claim coming from a Trump voter considering that we are watching the unqualified white guys they elected tear down the country in the absolute dumbest way possible.
Click to expand...

If many Trump voters didn't want to be viewed as if they embrace vranyo, maybe their words and actions shouldn't be indistinguishable from vranyo from the outside.
 
johnny karate said:
DEI is about widening the pool of applicants, not hiring unqualified people because of the color of their skin as the Trump-voting clowns in this thread are asserting.....
Click to expand...

If DEI fails to increase minority representation at a certain job without compromising on quality of candidate, do you believe it was unsuccessful?
 
Hmmm, it appears that sometimes DEI actually does mean loosening job requirements.

nypost.com

FDNY drops physical test requirement amid low female hiring rate

The Fire Department has stopped requiring probationary firefighters to pass a job-related physical-skills test before getting hired — a move that critics derided as a lowering of standards. The mov…
nypost.com nypost.com

bronx.news12.com

Proposal to recruit more women firefighters raises safety concerns

State lawmakers are considering a plan to attract more female firefighters, but critics say it could put fire crews – and the public – in danger.
bronx.news12.com
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom