Split Thread DEI in the US

[arthwollipot]

If that post was actually intended to argue that arthwollipot openly favors unfair treatment, then it was even more poorly considered than I'd first supposed.

That's exactly what they've been arguing.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I was quoting the word from post #1,143 where it had to be used in the second sense rather than the first, unless the post was intended to assume unfairness without bothering to make an argument about it.

We were talking about the fairness or unfairness of DEI for the last several pages, so I think it should be a fair assumption that it's about definition 1. You're the first one IIRC to ever switch to definition 2.

 

[d4m10n]

He's also the guy who literally argued that discrimination isn't bad, if it's for the reasons he likes.

I do not believe @arthwollipot meant to argue that unfair discrimination (definition 1) is not bad.

He is, of course, free to correct me on this.

 

[d4m10n]

You're the first one IIRC to ever switch to definition 2.

I was operating under the assumption that you were not strawmanning his position.

My bad, I guess.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I do not believe @arthwollipot meant to argue that unfair discrimination (definition 1) is not bad.

He is, of course, free to correct me on this.

My point is that virtually NOBODY thinks they are unfairly discriminating. The stereotypical grandpa telling racist jokes like, "how do you starve race X? Hide their food stamps under their worker boots" at the Xmas table also isn't thinking he's unfair. He didn't just wake up one morning and think, "you know what, it would be fun to be unreasonably racist." He just thinks he's saying it how it is, and about damn time someone said it. Virtually NOBODY is the villain in their own story. (Well, maybe except for a few edgelord goth teens)

As I keep saying, even Adolf seems to have literally and genuinely thought that he's actually the hero saving western civilisation and righting historical wrongs. The proponents of eugenics or anti-miscegenation laws in the USA didn't think they were unfair or unreasonable, just that they were doing what needs to be done for the future of the USA and justifiably discriminating against those uppity subhumans. The Japanese soldiers who committed the massacre of Nanjing also didn't think they were unfair or unreasonable. They just were appalled about how the Chinese didn't fit their idea of Bu(l)shido, when the Chinese soldiers ditched their uniforms and hid among the civilians, and the civilians approved and helped in that dishonourable behaviour. Etc.

We can still judge their reasoning as unfair or unreasonable even if they don't outright say or even think it is. They don't. They think it's fair and reasonable. So what? We can still judge it as unfair or unreasonable even if they don't. It involves no strawman, only using your own judgment of whether it actually is fair.

 

[jt512]

I do not believe @arthwollipot meant to argue that unfair discrimination (definition 1) is not bad.

He is, of course, free to correct me on this.

Of course Arth meant unfair discrimination. That's the whole point of DEI. You unfairly discriminate against white people today to make up for the fact that other white people discriminated against black people in the past.

 

[arthwollipot]

Of course Arth meant unfair discrimination. That's the whole point of DEI. You unfairly discriminate against white people today to make up for the fact that other white people discriminated against black people in the past.

Rightist white supremacist propaganda. Read a dictionary.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Rightist white supremacist propaganda. Read a dictionary.

Ah, right, the standard "progressive" echo-chamber cop out: anyone disagreeing with you must be some kind of right-wing extremist. Sure saves the effort to actually answer anything, amirite?

 

[arthwollipot]

Ah, right, the standard "progressive" echo-chamber cop out: anyone disagreeing with you must be some kind of right-wing extremist. Sure saves the effort to actually answer anything, amirite?

I'm literally describing where the argument comes from. You want to deny it, go right ahead.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I'm literally describing where the argument comes from. You want to deny it, go right ahead.

You want to SUPPORT it -- and how it's not at best a genetic fallacy and at worst pulled ex rectum, with association fallacy being somewhere in between -- go right ahead

 

[arthwollipot]

Look, if you are against the literal dictionary definitions of diversity, equity, and inclusion, you're by definition a racist and a white supremacist. That's all there is to it.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Look, if you are against the literal dictionary definitions of diversity, equity, and inclusion, you're by definition a racist and a white supremacist. That's all there is to it.

I've already given you the definition of equity used by its proponents. So WHOSE definition overrides that? Appeal to dictionary much? Even against what it's proponents literally say they mean by it? Know better than even them, hmm? Same as fundies "know" that God is real and he dictated the whole bible, hmm? Did the Holy Spirit come and give you personally the absolute holy truth? Holier than the literal pope, hmm? I mean, he's supposed to have a direct phone line to the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit didn't call the pope in about a century and a half, but he gave you the holy truth about what even the proponents of equity REALLY mean by it? Or did you win Randi's prize and know what's secretly in their head and that it's literally the opposite of what they're actually saying, hmm?

At this point you're just saying the equivalent of that you just know that someone saying "Snoop Dogg is one cool cat" is REALLY meaning he's a feline, because you chose that meaning out of your dictionary, even when they publicly said what they mean by it. As has been your act for years at this point, so no surprise.

 

[d4m10n]

My point is that virtually NOBODY thinks they are unfairly discriminating

That was literally my point at #1,169. When you claimed someone "literally argued that discrimination isn't bad" you failed to point out that they were not talking about unfair discrimination at all, from their own POV. From where I'm sitting, you cannot begin to resolve any of this without focusing on specific examples of discrimination in the real world. Is it okay to discriminate between the sexes when assigning people to changing rooms? Is it okay to assign coworkers to affinity groups based on race? Was the College Board's National Hispanic Recognition Program (NHRP) an example of unfair discrimination?

When I say specific examples, I mean actual policy proposals at some level, not hypotheticals like grandpa telling racist jokes which don't really help illustrate anything for anyone. No one wants to craft public or corporate DEI policy to shut Grandpa up at Xmas, as much as we might encourage him to do so amongst ourselves.

 

[d4m10n]

Of course Arth meant unfair discrimination. That's the whole point of DEI.

Can you please provide a specific example of the unfair discrimination which he supposedly promotes?

I clicked on that link he gave us, but it was pretty vague with loads of links to various programs.

 

[Abooga]

Rightist white supremacist propaganda. Read a dictionary.

When you resort to that, you´ve already lost the argument.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

This thread needs more examples of racism and bigotry being unfairly thwarted by DEI.

Bo French, a Republican running for a statewide office in Texas (and that office is more powerful than you'd be likely to guess if I were to tell you its title), has made a series of social media posts complaining about the number of non-white students he saw in a photograph of University of Texas (UT) students celebrating Saturday's 24-23 victory over #1-ranked Ohio State. When French posted that photograph, he wrote:

"I heard UT graduation this year looked like this. I didn't believe it. The problem is now obviously far worse than anyone imagined."​

To prevent anyone from inventing a non-racist interpretation of that, he went on to say it was a picture "exposing how many Americans have been displaced by foreigners. It's everywhere and far worse than any of us could imagine." And then, to make it even clearer, he accused the University of Texas of prioritizing "foreigners over Texans."

Before we go on, let's note that it wasn't a photograph of "UT graduation" but of students celebrating an amazing comeback against Ohio State. Furthermore, a state law passed in 1997 has been requiring UT to admit any high school student who graduates in the top 10% of his or her class from a Texas high school. That law led to an excessive number of admitted freshpeople. The university responded by tightening academic standards so as to flush many of its freshpeople out of the program within the first year or two. Texas legislators eventually relented by allowing UT to tighten the threshold from 10% to 5% for this fall's enrollment.

That history matters to this thread because the main reason there are so many non-white students at the University of Texas is that UT has been required to admit students who excel at the high school level. Diversity was one of the reasons the 10% rule was instituted, and that goal was achieved.

But Bo French is a bigot, and his bigotry led him to assume the non-white UT students he saw in that photograph were foreigners. In reality, international students make up less than 10% of UT's student body, and about 90% of UT's students graduated from Texas high schools.

Bo French's recent expressions of bigotry have been condemned by Republicans and Democrats alike. Senator John Cornyn characterized French's posts as "intolerance and racism." One of the Republican state legislators said "As a Longhorn, this person is unfit for office; as a Republican, this person is unfit for office." Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico said "Racism has no place in Texas."

It's so nice to see Bo French getting Texas Republicans and Democrats to agree on something.

---

Edited to add: Karl Rove, one of the Republicans who came right out and said Bo French is a bigot, said he was so disgusted by French's bigotry that he would vote for French's Democratic opponent in November's election. Rove said this would be only the second time he has ever voted for Democrat.

Donald Trump responded to Rove's condemnation of Bo French by saying Rove was bad for Republicans and

“He suffers from a major case of Trump Derangement Syndrome primarily because, for almost 10 years, I beat back and won against so many of the people and things that he wanted and espoused.”​

So not all Republicans are opposed to Bo French's bigotry and racism.

 

[d4m10n]

I mentioned the UT admissions process at post #808; it strikes me as one of the most defensible DEI programs at the state level in part because it increases student body diversity in a way that does not necessitate classifying students by race/ethnicity during the admissions process.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I mentioned the UT admissions process at post #808; it strikes me as one of the most defensible DEI programs at the state level in part because it increases student body diversity in a way that does not necessitate classifying students by race/ethnicity during the admissions process.

According to the anti-DEI crowd, the fact that there are a significant number of non-white people there shows that they discriminate against white people. One must remember, the anti-DEI crowd is all about white supremacy.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Here's another example of a policy based upon "merit" being thwarted by the US Constitution's protection of individual rights.

On the very first day of his second term as President, Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14170, "REFORMING THE FEDERAL HIRING PROCESS AND RESTORING MERIT TO GOVERNMENT SERVICE".

EO 14170 ordered "the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, and the Administrator of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)" to come up with "a Federal Hiring Plan that brings to the Federal workforce only highly skilled Americans dedicated to the furtherance of American ideals, values, and interests."

That plan, dated 29 May 2025, required applicants for jobs classified as GS-05 or above to answer four specific questions. Here is the third of those questions:

3. How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in
this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are
significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.

Three federal employee unions sued, saying that question amounted to an unconstitutional loyalty test unrelated to merit.

On Friday, US District Judge George A O'Toole Jr agreed, saying question 3 "calls for the applicant's personal view on a political topic." The judge issued a preliminary (and temporary) stay preventing question 3 from being used while the case is proceeding.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Not sure what either of those have to do with DEI.

The UT case is not based on some representation target, but by the same 10% best grades requirement for everyone. And it was not "thwarted" by any equity policy but by a state law that existed long before DEI was a thing and applies equally to everyone, regardless of race, gender or whatever. That's equality, not equity. And it shows they've been handling it just fine without harping on giving more to underrepresented groups.

And yeah, sure, you found one xenophobe guy who assumed they're foreigners, which has nothing to do with DEI either. But generally, whop-de-do you found one bigot. So what? Nobody said that they don't exist.

And Trump's loyalty test is dumb, as expected from Trump by now, but again it has nothing to do with DEI. And was defeated by existing constitutional and legal protections, not by some DEI policy.