Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

[Ziggurat]

Bet you $100 that the grants include NO language requiring certain academic or hiring policies or allowing for retroactive changes to the conditions of the grants. Grants are likely a legal agreement, and they cannot simply be changed years later.

The grants themselves don't need to. Federal law already imposes many requirements directly on grant recipients. For example, Title IX prohibits sex discrimination by any educational institution receiving federal funding.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't seem to think it. I'm going to outright say it. Education is a human right (UDHR Article 26). Universities should be public, and free. They should not be subject to ideological controls over what they can and cannot teach. Universities - including foreign universities as you well know - have been defunded because they do not conform to the American administration's ideological opposition to so-called "DEI". That is ideological restriction. That is fascism. You're not allowed to teach unless you teach what we want you to teach and nothing else.

Why do you think that the US is obligated to fund foreign universities?

If I were ruler of the universe I would give them that money, no questions asked. I would pay for it by taxing the rich a fraction of their wealth and reducing military funding by a fraction of its budget. Neither would even notice the cost, and we would have an educated and prosperous population that isn't subjected to fascist authoritarian ideology.

Perhaps you should ensure that Australia adopts your approach in its entirety before you authoritatively attempt to force a different country to do what you want it to do? You know - the thing you're complaining about the US doing?

 

[Hercules56]

I don't seem to think it. I'm going to outright say it. Education is a human right (UDHR Article 26). Universities should be public, and free. They should not be subject to ideological controls over what they can and cannot teach. Universities - including foreign universities as you well know - have been defunded because they do not conform to the American administration's ideological opposition to so-called "DEI". That is ideological restriction. That is fascism...

US Taxpayers have no moral or legal obligation to fund foreign colleges. We also have a right to require that foreign universities we DO fund abide by certain human rights. Like gay rights, equality for women, etc. That is not "fascism".

 

[Emily's Cat]

Call it what you want. I don't care. You would have free health care, free education for your children, and free social programmes to help people with disabilities, all paid for by the wealthiest 1% of the population. If you think those things are bad, then you're a bad person. End of story.

This is an absurdly dictatorial assertion. It's downright authoritarian to take such a hardened "my way or the highway" approach. You're demonstrating the behavior you claim to oppose.

The US has free education. We have free social programs to help people with disabilities. We have free health care for those who can't afford it, and many would like to have universal basic health care as an entitlement.

But this idea that all of these things should be paid for by a tiny little segment of the population is nutty. Progressive taxation that recognizes the marginal value of money, sure - most people support that as reasonable and appropriate. But your approach turns a tiny segment of people into slaves to the majority, and that's a bad idea.

 

[Hercules56]

The grants themselves don't need to. Federal law already imposes many requirements directly on grant recipients. For example, Title IX prohibits sex discrimination by any educational institution receiving federal funding.

That's not what the most recent war against Harvard and other colleges is about.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, just this one. And you know the best thing? My "utopian" vision is completely possible if there is the political will for it. That's the world that I would want for my children, and that's the world that I advocate for. A world that recognises that there is strength in diversity. That there is fairness in equity. That there is justice in inclusion. And that makes these benefits accessible to all.

Great. How about you start with your own country instead of trying to force a foreign country to bow to your desires?

But those with money and power aren't interested in that. All they are interested in is money and power. They prefer conformity, because when everything's the same, it's easier to control. They prefer injustice, because justice and equity for all costs them and they would do anything they can to avoid that cost. They prefer segregation because when people band together, they are a threat to authoritarians.

You're just packed full of mind reading, aren't you?

 

[johnny karate]

The grants themselves don't need to. Federal law already imposes many requirements directly on grant recipients. For example, Title IX prohibits sex discrimination by any educational institution receiving federal funding.

What requirements were violated in these real-world cases and how were the violations determined?

 

[Ziggurat]

That's not what the most recent war against Harvard and other colleges is about.

Not just Title IX, but violations of federal law, absolutely. For example, federal law requires publicly funded institutions to not racially discriminate. Harvard has done so.

 

[Hercules56]

Not just Title IX, but violations of federal law, absolutely. For example, federal law requires publicly funded institutions to not racially discriminate. Harvard has done so.

How did Harvard discriminate on the basis of race? When did the DOJ make such an accusation and based on what evidence did the DOJ make such a determination?

 

[Ziggurat]

How did Harvard discriminate on the basis of race?

In admissions. There's a whole history of lawsuits over the issue, it's pretty well demonstrated.

 

[Hercules56]

In admissions. There's a whole history of lawsuits over the issue, it's pretty well demonstrated.

That ended years ago. Has nothing to do with today's admissions policies or scientific grants.

 

[johnny karate]

In admissions. There's a whole history of lawsuits over the issue, it's pretty well demonstrated.

Great, if it's so well demonstrated, can you point me to the findings of the Trump administration that they used to make the determination that Harvard violated federal law and should have their funding rescinded?

 

[bruto]

I was under the impression that whatever criteria were used for the grants were met when the grants were made, so unless the institution has changed to violate those criteria, the grants should stand. Retroactive changing of the criteria should not affect them. As far as we've seen, the threat to defund colleges has been based on reinterpretation of ideas, often pretty vague, not on the colleges' conduct. The allegation seems to be that the government violated what Trump now believes the principles should have been, not that the colleges violated the principles that were applied by the government at the time.

Which is to say that I agree with Johnny Karate and Hercules56 on this one.

 

[jt512]

That's not what the most recent war against Harvard and other colleges is about.

It is primarily about Title VI, which requires schools receiving federal funds "to provide all students, including Jewish students, a school environment free from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, including shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics."

Source: U.S: Dept. of Education Office for Civil Rights

 

[Hercules56]

It is primarily about Title VI, which requires schools receiving federal funds "to provide all students, including Jewish students, a school environment free from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, including shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics."

Source: U.S: Dept. of Education Office for Civil Rights

If this is about violations of Title VI why isn't the Justice Department investigating and pressing charges?

 

[theprestige]

I was under the impression that whatever criteria were used for the grants were met when the grants were made, so unless the institution has changed to violate those criteria, the grants should stand. Retroactive changing of the criteria should not affect them. As far as we've seen, the threat to defund colleges has been based on reinterpretation of ideas, often pretty vague, not on the colleges' conduct. The allegation seems to be that the government violated what Trump now believes the principles should have been, not that the colleges violated the principles that were applied by the government at the time.

Which is to say that I agree with Johnny Karate and Hercules56 on this one.

That's absurd. It creates a perverse incentive to be temporarily compliant to get the grant, and then be flagrantly noncompliant thereafter with impunity. Can you imagine if the EPA or the SEC regulated their fields the same way?

 

[johnny karate]

It is primarily about Title VI, which requires schools receiving federal funds "to provide all students, including Jewish students, a school environment free from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, including shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics."

Source: U.S: Dept. of Education Office for Civil Rights

What investigation was done to make this determination and where can I access the details and results of this investigation?

 

[Hercules56]

What investigation was done to make this determination and where can I access the details and results of this investigation?

DOJ doesn't seem fit to press charges or do an investigation? Something smells fishy.

Its not up to to the President to decide on his own when Title VI is violated.

 

[johnny karate]

That's absurd. It creates a perverse incentive to be temporarily compliant to get the grant, and then be flagrantly noncompliant thereafter with impunity. Can you imagine if the EPA or the SEC regulated their fields the same way?

I'm not sure what you think you read in bruto's post but that is not at all what it states. Maybe go back and read it again.

 

[theprestige]

DOJ doesn't seem fit to press charges or do an investigation? Something smells fishy.

Its not up to to the President to decide on his own when Title VI is violated.

Government regulators rarely need a criminal or civil judgement, to make a finding of noncompliance and impose sanctions on their own authority.

Conversely, if a regulated entity believes the regulator is overstepping its authority, they can always seek a judicial injunction or other such remedy.