Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

[jt512]

It's simple, the wrong people are benefiting.

Stop lying. The program was canceled because the program allocated funds based on the racial profile of the recipients, contrary to executive order and, I suspect, constitutional law.

 

[Darat]

Stop lying. The program was canceled because the program allocated funds based on the racial profile of the recipients, contrary to executive order and, I suspect, constitutional law.

Why is that a lie, you yourself state above that as the reason it was cancelled.

There was a serious health problem, this solved it, but you agree that the problem should continue because mainly or wholly black people were the beneficiaries.

So as I said "the wrong people are benefiting".

 

[Darat]

Do you believe that any non black residents would not have had the problem with sewage and the health issues that causes fixed under this scheme?

 

[jt512]

Why is that a lie, you yourself state above that as the reason it was cancelled.

There was a serious health problem, this solved it, but you agree that the problem should continue because mainly or wholly black people were the beneficiaries.

So as I said "the wrong people are benefiting".

No, you are claiming that the program was canceled because the "wrong people," that is, blacks, were the beneficiaries. That is false. The program was canceled because the criterion for funding was race. Not black. Race.

 

[jt512]

Do you believe that any non black residents would not have had the problem with sewage and the health issues that causes fixed under this scheme?

Anybody in that community would have benefitted. The legal and ethical problem is that the program targeted communities, not because they were poor or needy, but because they were majority black.

 

[Darat]

False. As the originally cited article clearly stated, the goal of the program was "environmental justice." That means allocating money to black people because they have supposedly been deprived of environmental justice (whatever that means) due to systematic racism that is supposedly still ubiquitous in American society in 2025.

Are you claiming here was no problem with sewage in people's homes and gardens, that was made up?

 

[jt512]

Are you claiming here was no problem with sewage in people's homes and gardens, that was made up?

There is no way that anybody with an IQ over 80 could possibly think, based on anything I have written in this thread, that that was what I was claiming.

ETA: Since you obviously have an IQ over 80, it cannot possibly be the case that you are insinuating that that is what I was claiming.

 

[Darat]

There is no way that anybody with an IQ over 80 could possibly think, based on anything I have written in this thread, that that was what I was claiming.

ETA: Since you obviously have an IQ over 80, it cannot possibly be the case that you are insinuating that that is what I was claiming.

Well my IQ is well over 80 and I think your argument is that the wrong people were benefiting from this scheme so the problem should not be fixed. Which is what canceling the scheme does and you agree it should be cancelled so the problem isn't fixed.

So as I said your argument is that the problem shouldn't be fixed because the wrong people are benefiting from the problem being fixed under this program.

 

[erwinl]

False. As the originally cited article clearly stated, the goal of the program was "environmental justice." That means allocating money to black people because they have supposedly been deprived of environmental justice (whatever that means)
due to systematic racism that is supposedly still ubiquitous in American society in 2025.

Yes it is.
The Law in the US is set up such, that it keeps the bulk of the African Americans in poverty and in such a way that helping them to get out of that poverty, means targetting communities that are majority black. And thus people like you or a Trausti can stop anything that would help them because 'helping them would be racism!'

If there truly was no more systemic racism and this problem with the sewers was truly seen as something that had to be fixed, then the wording of the program goal would be changed so that it could continue.
But that was never in the cards, wasn't it? It is far more important to grasp at the letter of the law in order to stop a program like this.

I'm convinced evere more, reading words like yours and that of someone like Trausti that the character Don Johnson played in 'Knifes out' was exactly right and more of a documentary than that of a movie.

 

[jt512]

The Law in the US is set up such, that it keeps the bulk of the African Americans in poverty...

Really? If you know that "[t]he Law [sic] in the US is set up such, that it keeps the bulk of the African Americans in poverty," then you should have no trouble quoting the text of those laws that do that. We'll wait.

 

[Andy_Ross]

If it honks like a goose

 

[Darat]

Really? If you know that "[t]he Law [sic] in the US is set up such, that it keeps the bulk of the African Americans in poverty," then you should have no trouble quoting the text of those laws that do that. We'll wait.

According to you the constitution stops their sewage problem being fixed.

 

[Aridas]

Anybody in that community would have benefitted. The legal and ethical problem is that the program targeted communities, not because they were poor or needy, but because they were majority black.

...That claim is off.

More truthfully, the program targeted communities because they were poor, needy, and likely would have had problems that they faced addressed to some extent if they weren't primarily black. Under Biden, the federal government stepped in to help address issues long left unaddressed because things are the way they are. The legal and ethical problems that you've invoked are smoke and mirrors.

Oh, and because you claim not to understand what environmental racism is -

Environmental racism refers to the disproportionate burden of environmental harms, like pollution and lack of environmental protection, placed on communities of color. This can manifest as policies and practices that place polluting facilities near these communities, leading to health risks and inequitable living conditions. It's a form of systemic racism where race is a primary factor in determining environmental risks and burdens.

The simple fact is that people who were poor and underserved were being helped and the Trump Administration stopped that. That you're trying to defend that with a conjured up technicality that paves the way for a return to the long-standing issue of supposedly nondiscriminatory programs being used to very disproportionately benefit white people or harm black people is not some noble thing.

 

[jt512]

According to you the constitution stops their sewage problem being fixed.

???

 

[bruto]

I asked you what problem it is you think my response suggested doesn't exist, and you are just repeating "a problem," so I'll ask again: What problem did my response suggest doesn't exist.

I haven't said any problem doesn't exist. You're just making that up. You can't even name the problem when asked.

I've answered essentially that same question at least twice before. You can allocate federal funds based on need, poverty, low income, etc. If the beneficiaries are disproportionately black because black people are disproportionately poor, that program would be perfectly fine. But the criterion has to be poverty, not race.

How dense is dense here? I named the problem and named it again. The problem is that raw sewage is bubbling up in people's lawns! The problem is that inadequate sewage systems are making people sick from the kind of things raw sewage bubbling up in their yards causes. They are poor people in a poor neighborhood, and not in a position to fix the problem themselves. They happen to be mostly black.

The repair of this problem was cancelled because someone had the gall to attribute it to historically racist practices of segregated neighborhoods and inequitable housing. So let us imagine for the moment that the reason for the problem is mistaken. Maybe it just happened and it could happen anywhere to anyone. Sewage is still surfacing in people's yards for some reason or no reason, the anywhere is here, and the repair has been cancelled, so the sewage will continue to surface. You are so hung up on this issue of DEI that you have translated that into giving money to black people for the wrong reason instead of fixing a rampant health hazard that exists where it exists. You say one can allocate funds based on need, but where the need exists it cannot be done because you don't like the language of the allocation or the stated purpose of the agency doing it.

You're against this program, it seems, because its stated purpose is to correct an unfairness you claim does not exist. But in this case at least, the problem exists whatever the unfairness is or is not. You appear to say that it's better not to do anything than to do a portion of it, because the reason trumps the need. I think it is naive to believe that disproportion does not still exist in this world. Whatever your philosophical or social reasons for objection might be, and however right-minded and pure they are, to proceed as if it did not guarantees that it will never go away.

 

[erwinl]

Really? If you know that "[t]he Law [sic] in the US is set up such, that it keeps the bulk of the African Americans in poverty," then you should have no trouble quoting the text of those laws that do that. We'll wait.

By stopping a badly needed sewer renovation for instance, just because the recipients happened to be black.

And no, there is nothing in any US law that says something really racist.
Only the bulk of the laws are set up such that African Americans just so happen to fall foul of them.

 

[Trausti]

Yes it is.
The Law in the US is set up such, that it keeps the bulk of the African Americans in poverty and in such a way that helping them to get out of that poverty, means targetting communities that are majority black. And thus people like you or a Trausti can stop anything that would help them because 'helping them would be racism!'

If there truly was no more systemic racism and this problem with the sewers was truly seen as something that had to be fixed, then the wording of the program goal would be changed so that it could continue.
But that was never in the cards, wasn't it? It is far more important to grasp at the letter of the law in order to stop a program like this.

I'm convinced evere more, reading words like yours and that of someone like Trausti that the character Don Johnson played in 'Knifes out' was exactly right and more of a documentary than that of a movie.

Can you please point out this law? Specifically? Which statute are you referring to?

 

[Darat]

???

You said the program to fix their sewage problem was unconstitutional and it was right their sewage isn’t going to be fixed under this now canceled program.

 

[Trausti]

You said the program to fix their sewage problem was unconstitutional and it was right their sewage isn’t going to be fixed under this now canceled program.

I don't understand why the government would be fixing their septic. Does every homeowner with septic get to have taxpayers pay for upkeep?

 

[bruto]

By stopping a badly needed sewer renovation for instance, just because the recipients happened to be black.

And no, there is nothing in any US law that says something really racist.
Only the bulk of the laws are set up such that African Americans just so happen to fall foul of them.

Nothing any more. But there used to be. We're enjoined to stop talking about it, and forbidden to teach about it, and that way we can make it all retroactively unhappen. It's unseemly and unamerican and all way too wokish to suggest that changing those laws a generation ago did not instantly correct the effect of centuries of legalized bias, and did not immediately set right the social and economic errors of those living and teaching and procreating at that very moment. Nope. It's all fixed now, and if you describe the world as it is using the wrong terminology, you land on a snake square, and back to the start you go!